Point of Law : Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations.

JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant husband. Also heard Ms. N.S. Thakuria, learned counsel for the respondent wife.

2. The marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife stood dissolved by the order dated 26.09.2017 of the Principle Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C.(Civil) Case No. 226/2016. The divorce suit was instituted by the appellant and the respondent expressed that she had no objection if a decree of divorce was passed. Upon the decree of divorce being passed, the respondent preferred an application under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for permanent alimony.

3. In the proceeding for permanent alimony, the respondent wife took the stand that she had no income to maintain herself while the appellant husband is a civil engineer who is working as Vice-Principal in Matriz College of Engineering in Guwahati and also associated with the Regional Institute of Science and Technology and further working with M/s. M.P. Construction as a structural engineer for which he is paid a good amount of money for every structural design. A stand was also taken that the appellant husband has a three storied RCC residential building, an Assam type house and six numbers of rooms at Dispur which were let out to different persons for the purpose of operating shops. Accordingly, a permanent alimony of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) was claimed. A claim was also made that although a talaq was given, but the amount of moharana fixed at Rs. 4,44,444/- was not paid.

4. Apart from taking a stand that the petition under Section 37 for permanent alimony is barred by res-judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant husband also denied the claim made by the respondent wife as regards his financial position. The appellant admitted to the extent that he was working as a Vice-Principal in the Matriz College. The appellant took a stand that the respondent is a practicing advocate and therefore it would be incorrect to say that she has no income of her own.

5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court in its order dated 16.08.2018 was of the view that although the respondent had no source of income and was not in a position to maintain herself and the appellant was Vice-Principal of a private college and also engaged in other institutes, but the respondent had not submitted any salary certificate of the appellant nor she had produced any evidence or document showing the income of the appellant. The learned Court was also of the view that it was the duty of the parties to disclose their income and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant to bring about the evidence as regards his income. The learned Court was of the view that in a case where the relationship is strained and the spouses are living separately for a considerable period, it may not be within the knowledge of the wife as regards the income that the husband may be having.

6. As the appellant had not disclosed his income, the Court had drawn a presumption against him and accepted what the respondent had stated as regards his income. Considering the aspect that the appellant is a civil engineer working as Vice-Principal in Matriz College of Engineering and was also involved with other educational institutes and further by taking into account that the age of the respondent was about 34 years and the average life expectancy of a female in India being 69.6 years, the learned Court took the view that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) would be a reasonable amount for the purpose of permanent alimony for the respondent.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 in Misc.(J) Case No. 173/2017, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. In the appeal, the appellant has relied upon a certificate issued by the authorities of Matriz College of Engineering where the appellant is working to substantiate that