1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the I-Additional Prl. Family Court, Mysuru (‘Family Court’ for short) in M.C. No. 75/2014 directing the appellant herein to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent.

2. Facts in brief are:

The appellant and the respondent got married to each other as per Christian Customary Rights on 28.12.2016 at Bethel Brothern Church, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru. The couple had a female child by name Grace Jacintha in the wedlock, who is now aged about 8 years. Due to the matrimonial disharmony between the couple, the appellant herein filed petition under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the ‘Act’ for short) before the Family Court. So also, the respondent filed C. Misc. No. 437/2014 against the appellant claiming maintenance. The Court below clubbed both the petitions and passed common judgment and order on 01.02.2017. The petition filed by the appellant for divorce was allowed and the C. Misc. No. 437/2014 filed by the respondent for maintenance was dismissed. However, while granting the decree of divorce, the Court below directed the appellant herein to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs. The said portion of the order directing the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent is challenged herein.

3. The learned counsel Smt. S. Susheela appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned order, quantifying the permanent alimony, on two grounds. Firstly, Section 37 of the Act do not entitle the wife to claim for permanent alimony, where the husband has filed the petition for divorce. Placing reliance on Section 37 of the Act, the learned counsel vehemently argued that the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the permanent alimony to the wife exercising the power under Section 37 of the Act. Secondly, it was contended that the respondent is capable of earning, being a beautician whereas the appellant is only a taxi driver not having the assured income. In addition to that, the appellant has to take care of his mother and child who are dependent on him. In the absence of any material placed on record by the respondent, to establish the factum of income of the appellant, permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded by the Court below is wholly unsustainable. Thus, the learned counsel sought for setting aside the order impugned, awarding permanent alimony, allowing the appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. As regards the first point, we find it apt to refer to the legal dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the expression “alimony” and the same is extracted hereunder:

“Alimony. In a legal sense, it is taken for that allowance which a married woman sues for and is entitled to, upon separation from her husband; the allowance made to the wife out of her husband’s estate for her support, either during a matrimonial suit, or at its termination, when she proves herself entitled to a separate maintenance.”

6. Thus, Permanent alimony is the support given to the wife under the provisions of the Act, post divorce, to ensure a decent life to the wife. It is the support to the wife lest she suffering vagrancy if, she is not able to maintain herself. It is well settled position of law by now that the amount of permanent alimony must be sufficient to ensure that a woman lives with dignity after separating from her husband. As regards granting of permanent alimony to the wife under the provisions of the Act is considered, the issue is no more res integra, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Margaret Pereira vs. Mr. Gerald Castelino in MFA No. 10115/2011 dated 4.8.2015. The relevant para is extracted herein:

“8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. The contention that the wife is not entitled for permanent alimony in a case where dissolution of marriage is granted in favour of the husband, m