Panna Chand Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27-10-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, by which the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by passing a decree of divorce on the petitions of the husband,
2, Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent are wife and husband. They were married as per the Hindu customs on 13-6-1981. The petitioner in the petition for divorce has pleaded that Smt. Brijlata left the petitioner's house with her parents on 15-6-1981 and, thereafter inspite of several approaches being made, she did not come to the petitioner's house for discharging her matrimonial obligations. The petitioner has also contended that even his parents went to bring Smt. Brijlata, but she did not turn up with the consequence that on account of the shock, his mother died on 7-7-1982. Summons were issued on 27-9-1983 for appearing on the next date, i.e., September 29, 1983. The non-petitioner appellant refused the service of summons and the service was effected by affixture of the summons in a school where the non-petitioner was working as a teacher. As the non-petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing, the case proceeded ex-parte. The learned trial court recorded the statement of petitioner Someshwar Singh and also examined Mandal Dutt as PW 2. On the basis of the testimony of these two witnesses, the learned lower court held that the non-petitioner-respondent has deserted the husband and, accordingly, passed a decree of divorce. Mr. M.L. Kala, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-appellant, submitted that in the case no proper service was effected on the respondent and as such, the decree should be set aside on this ground alone. Mr. D.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that as the summons were refused, it was appropriate for the process server to effect the summons where the non-petitioner was working. I have seen the report of the process server. In the report, it is stated that Smt. Brijlata took the summons, read them and then she refused to acknowledge receipt. In the circumstances, if the summons were affixed on the place where she was employed, there was nothing wrong in proceeding ex-parte by the court. It may be mentioned that the summons were issued on the address where the non-petitioner-appellant was serving a teacher. There is thus no force in the submissions of Shri Kala. As the judgment is based on un-rebutted testimony of the petitioner, Mr. Kala was unable to say anything. There is thus no force in the appeal, as a decree of divorce is being passed, it would be appropriate to pass an order for permanent alimony and maintenance. The facts of the case, as disclosed above, were that the wife and the husband did not remain together fore more than three months. The husband is a teacher and the wife is also a teacher. It has been brought to the notice of the court that after the passing of the ex-parte decree on 27th October, 1983, the husband has married.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the husband respondent shall pay to the wife appellant a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as permanent alimony and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. This amount of Rs. 19,000/- shall be paid within a period of six months'. Out of Rs. 19,000/-, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid within three months of the passing of this order and the balance amount shall be paid on or before six. months' of the passing of this order. In case, the said amount is not paid within the time aforesaid, the decree for divorce shall stand revoked.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.