Point of Law: Decree of divorce is not under challenge not deem it necessary to go into the excruciating details as regards the allegations and counter allegation made by the parties in the divorce petition.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. P. Katakey, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. A. Hamid, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner (husband) against the judgment and order dated 10/10/2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, Assam, in connection with Title Suit (M) No. 85/2016, granting a decree of divorce on the prayer of the appellant while awarding a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the respondent (wife) as permanent alimony. Neither party is aggrieved by the dissolution of their marriage by the decree of divorce. However, the appellant’s grievance is solely pertaining to the quantum of permanent alimony.

3. The appellant and the respondent had got married on 07/03/1991 by following the Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, both the parties had lived together for some time. However, within a few months of marriage, there was quarrel between the couple and the wife had allegedly refused to co-habit with the appellant. As such, the appellant as petitioner, had approached the learned Court below by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion which was granted by the learned Court below. In view of the fact that the decree of divorce is not under challenge before us, we do not deem it necessary to go into the excruciating details as regards the allegations and counter allegation made by the parties in the divorce petition.

4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 10/10/2018, as mentioned herein above, the divorce petition was allowed. The respondent (wife) had claimed a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as permanent alimony, which was partially allowed by the learned trial Court by awarding a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. The quantum of permanent alimony was decided by the learned trial Court by framing issue no.3. Therefore, the finding recorded as regards issue no. 3 is reproduced herein below :-

“13. Issue No. 3: This Issue is related to reliefs to granting of permanent alimony to wife. So far fixing the amount of permanent Alimony is concerned, admittedly the petitioner/husband is working as Hindi teacher in a Government school. Against the claim of the Op side that petitioner is getting a salary of Rs. 35000/- per month, the petitioner did not file any document to contradict the same or even disclosed his exact salary for which he is the best person to do so and the burden is on him u/s 106 Evidence Act. During his cross examination the husband has admitted that he has not submitted his salary statement. However he denied having any Holler and cultivable land. From the record, it appears that presently the petitioner is paying Rs. 2000/- as monthly maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is also paying Rs. 3000/- as directed by this court u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act during pendency of this proceeding. Considering the fact that as the petitioner-husband is serving as teacher in a Government school and as there is nothing on record to show that he has any other liability except to maintain himself, I am of the opinion that if an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs) (being 20 times of his monthly salary) is granted towards permanent alimony it will be just and proper for the O.P.-wife to maintain herself by putting the said amount in systematic investment for earning Rs. 6000 - Rs. 7000/- per month towards interest and she can maintain herself with minimum standard. Considering above, I fix the permanent alimony amount at Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) payable by the petitioner husband to the OP/Wife.”

5. By referring to the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Katakey has argued that when the impugned order was passed, the gross salary of his client was around Rs. 35,000/- and he was also required to pay substantial amount as loan repayment installments for the house building loan availed by the appellant. Mr. Katake