husband was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court and that wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties. It set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act and further directed that the appellant to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent maintenance within eight weeks which included Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs deposited by the appellant before the trial Court. While doing so, the Supreme Court referring to the decision in the case of Chetan Dass v.Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250, Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan reported in (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588, Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon reported in (1993) 2 SCC 6, Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90, Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma reported in (2004) 1 SCC 123, Prakash Chand Sharma v. Vimlesh reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 642, V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and A.Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , held as follows in pararagraphs-55,56, 65, 73, 74 and 75:
