The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the consideration of relevant factors such as the parties' income, conduct, and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)

1. This Matrimonial Appeal has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, by Smti Aruti Dusad, challenging the quantum of the Permanent Alimony and future maintenance awarded by the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2011 and decree dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar in F.C.(Civil) Case No. 152/2006 as well as praying for its enhancement. The present appellant was the respondent in F.C. (Civil) Case No. 152/2006, which was registered on filing of a petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by her the then husband and the respondent in the present appeal Sri Shiv Pujan Dusad for dissolution of his marriage with the present appellant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Family Court, Cachar has dissolved the marriage between the present appellant and the respondent under Sections 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also directed the present respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the present appellant as Permanent Alimony and future maintenance.

2. In the present appeal, the appellant has not challenged either the decree for divorce or the grounds on which the divorce was granted in F.C. (Civil) Case No. 152/2006. The appellant has only partially challenged the decree with regard to the quantum of permanent alimony granted by learned Family Court, Cachar. The appellant has prayed for enhancement of Permanent Alimony to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs) from Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) which was awarded by learned Family Court, Cachar.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. R. Rongmai. None appeared for the respondent. Though, by order dated 24.02.2021, an AmicusCuriaewas also appointed by this Court, however, she failed to appear when the case was called on for hearing. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and long pendency of this appeal, we proceed to dispose of this appeal finally after hearing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and after consideration of available material on record.

4. The factual matrix of this case, in brief, is that the appellant was married to the respondent as per Hindu rituals on 04.04.1985. When the present appellant was carrying four months of pregnancy, she was taken to her father’s house by her parents and a male child was born to her, on 31.12.1985, in the house of her parents. Thereafter, for a brief period, the appellant stayed with the respondent in his house. However, on 10.03.1987, the appellant left the matrimonial home with her child without informing the respondent and since then, she never returned back which led to filing of the divorce petition, by the respondent, on 08.12.2003 (i.e.,afterabout16yearsoftheappellantleaving her matrimonial home), before the Family Court, Cachar, Silchar seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The present respondent, who was the petitioner before the Family Court, adduced the evidence of 3 (three) witnesses including himself in support of his case, whereas the present appellant, who was the respondent before the Family Court, also adduced evidence of 3 (three) witnesses including herself. Learned Family Court, by judgment and decree passed in said F.C. (Civil) Case No.152/2006 granted the divorce by holding that the present appellant had, without any reasonable cause, deserted the respondent for more than 16 years and also subjected him to mental cruelty by depriving him from fatherly affection towards his child. This finding of Learned Family Court, Cachar has not been challenged by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Family Court, while deciding the quantum of Permanent Alimony under Section 25 of