The court considered the income, age, and retirement of the husband, and the daughter's independence in assessing the permanent alimony, highlighting the principles of fairness and justice in determining alimony.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Lamba, J.

1. Smt. Dipika Gogoi Khanikar @ Dipika Khanikar has preferred this matrimonial appeal directed against judgment rendered by Additional District Judge-2, Tinsukia in Title Suit (M) Case No. 77/2015 titled Sri Pradip Khanikar vs. Smt. Dipika Gogoi Khanikar dated 19.7.2019.

2. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that the appellant wife and the respondent husband got married on 5.5.1986. Allegedly the marriage survived only for few months on account of matrimonial differences. The parties have been living separately since 1987. One child, daughter, was born out of the wedlock, who is already married and is not dependant.

3. On going through the impugned judgment and decree, it becomes evident that the respondent husband preferred a suit for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Vide impugned judgment and decree, the suit was decreed. The marriage has been dissolved.

So far as alimony is concerned, permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs or an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance has been allowed towards the wife.

4. The appeal has been filed by Smti Dipika Gogoi Khanikar @ Dipika Khanikar, wife, in challenge to the judgment and decree of divorce. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 29.10.2019, following order was passed:

"1. The respondent/husband preferred a suit for divorce vide Title Suit (M) No. 77/2015, Sri Pradip Khanikar vs. Smt. Dipika Gogoi Khanikar. Decree for divorce has been granted vide the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017. So far as alimony is concerned, as provided in paras 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment, the court directed the husband to pay permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) or an amount in the sum of Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month as maintenance allowance to the wife.

2. Mat. App. No. 51/2018 has been filed by the wife while praying that if permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) is given, she will not contest the divorce, and consequently would accept decree of divorce. It has further been said in the appeal that if alimony at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month is upheld by this Court, then she would contest the divorce.

3. So far as the amount of alimony is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband has pointed out that other than Rs. 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakh) onetime payment as alimony or in the alternative Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month, the husband is required to pay Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another Rs. 15,000.00 under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It has been pointed out that in regard to the order passed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, CRP No. 278/2017, Pradip Khanikar vs. Smt. Dipika Khanikar has been filed which is required to be taken up with this case.

4. We have also taken into account the fact that Mat. App. No. 21/2018 has been filed by the husband in challenge to the amount of alimony awarded vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has impressed upon the Court that though life expectancy of 75 years has been considered by the trial court, the trial court, however, has failed in taking into account the fact that the respondent/husband is already aged 58 years and his earning life would be restricted to about 60 years. This has caused manifest injustice.

6. We find that the appellant/wife is approbating and reprobating which cannot be permitted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant/wife shall take specific instructions and file specific affidavit of the appellant in regard to the prayer to be pressed in this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the parties have made a joint request for adjournment to seek specific instructions from their respective clients.

9. We deem it just and proper to direct the parties to rema