Point of Law: In matters pertaining to grant of permanent alimony, the trial Court would be obliged to take note of the evidence brought on record indicating the assets and liabilities vis-a-vis the means of livelihood of both the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. M.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08/04/2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 54/2012 arising out of FC(Civil) case No. 186/2012, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-as permanent alimony, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent herein.

3. It appears from the materials available on record that the marriage between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court on 28/02/2018 in connection with FC(Civil) Case No. 186/2012. The decree of divorce has not been assailed by the respondent. However, it appears that the respondent had filed an application registered and numbered as Misc. (J) case No. 54/2012 with a prayer to pass an order for granting permanent alimony for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to be paid by the appellant. By the impugned order dated 08/04/2019, the aforesaid application had been disposed of the learned Court below by granting a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as permanent alimony.

4. In support of her prayer, the respondent/petitioner had contended before the trial Court that the appellant/opposite party was employed in a private firm called Genius Consultant Ltd. and is receiving a salary of Rs. 15,146/-per month, as on the month of September, 2014. That apart, he had income from other sources including business, which takes his gross monthly income to Rs. 50,000/-. According to the respondent/petitioner, the appellant is also the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 6 lessa and he had constructed an Assam Type House thereupon, which had been let out on rent for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-per month. It was also contended that the appellant owns a separate plot of land measuring 1 katha and is also a co-sharer of other ancestral land measuring 30 bighas. On the other hand, the respondent/petitioner had claimed that she was working as a contractual employee in a Grade-IV post in the K.K. Handique Open University. She has also stated that it was a temporary post with the possibility of her services being terminated at any time. Therefore, she did not have sufficient means to support herself.

5. The appellant (husband) on the other hand, had adduced evidence to the effect that he was initially working in a Tea Company as a Godown In-charge and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-. With effect from the month of June/2010, he has been serving as a Manager in the Tata Tea Wear House drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 13,000/-. The appellant had admitted that prior to his marriage, he had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 katha at Beltola in Guwahati and he had also constructed an Assam Type House over the said plot of land in the year 2006 by availing personal loan to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/-from the family members.

6. The appellant had also projected that in terms of an order passed by the Court in a proceeding registered under the Domestic Violence Act, instituted by the respondent /petitioner, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/-per month i.e. Rs. 4,000/-for the respondent /petitioner and a sum of Rs. 3,000/-for their minor son and the said order was also upheld by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2016. Since he had been made to pay sum of Rs. 7,000/-to the respondent in connection with the order passed in the proceeding registered under the Domestic Violence Act, he was not liable to pay any further amount.

7. Taking note of the materials available on record, the learned Family Court had made the following observation in the order dated 08/04/2019 while granting permanent alimony of Rs. 4 lakhs in favour of the respondent :

“The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner categorically brought the fact in her evidence that the opposite party is working in Genius Consultant ltd. having monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2014 and also has