proceedings, to contend that the petitioner’s conduct is abominable and, therefore, she is disentitled for the grant of permanent alimony. He has placed before this Court a copy of his salary certificate dated 28-01-2014, and the annual property statement for the year 20102011 submitted by him to the department, and has prayed that the petition be dismissed. Sri J. Prabhakar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is penniless, and the amount being paid by the respondent towards her monthly maintenance, in terms of the orders passed in the maintenance case, is insufficient even to pay for her monthly rent; even if any amount is awarded towards permanent alimony, after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances under Section 25 of the Act, it would be difficult for her to realize the amount awarded by this Court from the respondent; the respondent’s conduct, in avoiding payment, is evident even from the proceedings sheet of the appeal; it is clear therefrom that he has been reluctant even to pay for their daughter's education expenses; in case the amount is not appropriately secured, it would be difficult for the petitioner to even survive; and, therefore, this Court should create a charge or security over the G.P.F. amount and other retiral benefits payable to the respondent on his attaining the age superannuation or on his retirement. Learned Counsel would rely on State Bank of India v. S.B. Shah Ali (Died) for L.Rs; Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma; B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy; and Rajesh Burman v. Mitul Chatterjee. Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, Learned counsel for the respondent, has filed his written submissions wherein he reiterated the contentions urged in the counter. He has drawn our attention to certain admissions made by the petitioner in different proceeding, and the letters addressed by her to the respondent, in support of his submission that her abominable conduct disentitles her being granted any permanent alimony, much less for Rs.25,00,000/-. Learned Counsel would submit that the conduct of the petitioner, throughout the past 17 years, and the various acts attributed to her and admitted by her in her evidence, are sufficient to deny her permanent alimony; though he is getting a meagre income of Rs.19,166/- as his net monthly salary, and he does not possess any immoveable property, he has been paying the petitioner maintenance, in the maintenance case, of Rs.3,500/- p.m besides bearing the education expenses of their daughter Navya; no charge can be created against his G.P.F. account and other retiral benefits as Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, 'the 1882 Act’), permits creation of a charge only against immovable property; no charge can, therefore, be created against the respondent’s retiral benefits; and the petitioner is not entitled to claim Rs.20,00,000/- towards the education and marriage expenses of their daughter under Section 25 of the Act. He would place reliance on A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kumar, to contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed. In so far as the petitioner’s claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, towards the education and marriage expenses of their daughter is concerned, Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, Learned Counsel for the respondent, while asserting in para No. 5 of his written arguments that the respondent is ready and willing to look after his daughter, and meet all her reasonable expenses towards her maintenance, education and marriage, would, however, contend that, in a petition filed under Section 25 of the Act, no amount can be granted towards the education and marriage expenses of children who have attained majority. Section 25 of the Act enables the Court to award permanent alimony only to the spouse, and not to the child/children. However, under Section 26 of the Act, the Court may pass an order for the maintenance and education of minor children by way of a decree, or by way of an interim order in case the proceedings, for obtaining such a decree, are still pending. The power conferred on the Court, under Section 26 of the Act, can be exercised only to grant maintenance, and to provide for the educational expenses of a minor child. In the present case Kumari K. Navya, the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent, is undergoing her first year degree in Engineering, and does not appear to have completed 18 years of age as on date. Though the petition is filed under Section 25 of the Act, this Court has the power, under Section 26 of the Act, to direct the respondent to pay for her maintenance and education expenses till she attains majority. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondent to meet the entire education expenses of Kumari K. Navya, and pay her Rs.7,500/- per month towards her maintenance till she attains majority. We make it clear that this order does not preclude Kumari K. Navya, the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent, from claiming maintenance, education and marriage expenses under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the “1956 Act”) by instituting appropriate legal proceedings. With regards her claim of permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-, it is the petitioner’s case that she has no means to survive, let alone lead a life on par with the respondent who is working as a Commercial Tax Officer; the amount of Rs.3,500/- per month, being paid by him towards her maintenance, is insufficient even to meet the rent for her residence; she is penniless, and is unable to make both ends meet; and the respondent receives a huge salary as a C.T.O, besides possessing both movable and immovable properties. Her apprehension is that, in case the respondent retires from service, it would well nigh be impossible for her to realize the amount, if any, awarded towards permanent alimony and for the maintenance of their daughter. The petitioner requests this Court to create a charge over the G.P.F. and other retiral benefits of the respondent, which Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would contend is impermissible as there is no provision in the Act for a charge to be created over the respondent’s retiral benefits. Section 25 of the Act provides that any Court, exercising jurisdiction under the Act, may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on an application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant, for her or his maintenance and support, such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. Section 25 of the Act enables the Court to direct the respondent to pay the applicant a gross sum for her “maintenance and support”. The term “maintenance” is defined, in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn., pp. 953-54), as the furnishing by one person to another, for his or her support, of the means of living, or food, clothing, shelter, etc. particularly where the legal relation of the parties is such that one is bound to support the other, as between father and child, or husband and wife. Likewise the word “support”, as defined in the said dictionary (p. 1439), is that which furnishes a livelihood; a source or means of living; subsistence, sustenance, maintenance, or living. In a broad sense the term includes all such means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort suitable and becoming to his/her station of life. It is said to include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, travelling expense, or other proper cognate purposes; also, proper care, nursing, and medical attendance in sickness, and suitable burial at death. (Rajesh Burman5). Section 25 of the Act confers a right on the spouse to claim maintenance or permanent alimony. The Section is incorporated to secure the interests of the alienated spouse, provide for her maintenance and to ensure that she continues to lead a life which, in the view of the Court, is just and proper. Permanent alimony is to be granted taking into consideration the social status, the conduct of the parties, the way of living of the spouse, and such other ancillary aspects. (Viswanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal). While granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. (U. Sree v. U. Srinivas; Vinny Parmvir Parmar1). Before deciding whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of permanent alimony and, if so, the amount payable to her in this regard, it is necessary for us to examine the contentions, urged on behalf of the respondent, that the petitioner is disentitled for grant of permanent alimony because of her abominable conduct such as her addressing letters threatening to commit suicide; giving false complaints against the respondent and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C; making them run around Courts and police stations; lodging a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau for action being taken against him for his corrupt practices; addressing letters to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission questioning his selection as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer; and making unethical allegations of his having married a woman naxalite with whom he was alleged to have developed an illicit relationship while working as a Village Revenue Officer. The conduct of the parties to the petition is one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the Court in determining whether or not permanent alimony should be granted. In N. Varalalakshmi Vs. N.V. Hanumantha Rao, a Division Bench of this Court held that, even after a decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse who has applied for it unless the conduct of the spouse is abominable; and that mere desertion of the spouse would not amount to abominable conduct. It is only if the conduct of the petitioner is abominable, would this Court be required to consider whether, and to what extent, such conduct would have an effect on the grant of permanent alimony. The word “abominable” means odious, offensive. The conduct of both the parties before, during the pendency of proceedings, and after filing the present petition is relevant. The material on record does show that the petitioner has made serious allegations against her husband. She filed a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also threatened to commit suicide. While her conduct is not beyond reproach, is it such as to disentitle her from being granted permanent alimony? Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, Learned counsel for the respondent, has, in his written submissions, referred to the
