Permanent alimony should reflect the reasonable comfort of the claimant considering their status, living standards during marriage, and any sacrifices made.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

Appellant/wife is the petitioner in O.P. No.818/2021 of Family Court, Kannur. She filed the Original Petition seeking divorce, permanent alimony and damages for marital tort. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce and partially allowed appellant's claim for permanent alimony. The claim for damages was disallowed. Dissatisfied with the quantum of permanent alimony and the declinment of her claim for damages for marital tort, this appeal has been preferred by her.

2. Appellant’s case is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 25.5.2008 as per Special Marriage Act ; that in the said wedlock, two children were born to them; that after the marriage, respondent and his parents ill-treated her and subjected her to cruelty alleging that she did not bring enough dowry as expected by them. At the time of marriage, appellant was employed in Bangalore and respondent was employed in Wayanad. Subsequently, respondent got employment as a clerk in the GST department. After the birth of the 1^st child, appellant resigned her job and resided with the respondent and his parents. Respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty and he harassed her mentally and physically. He had an extramarital affair with a colleague of his and whenever the appellant questioned it, he used to assault her. He physically assaulted her and caused grievous hurt and also made attempts to kill her. At last, she preferred a complaint before the Police pursuant to which the Police registered a crime against him . Due to the cruelty of the respondent, appellant and her children had to leave the company of the respondent. Respondent failed to maintain the appellant though he has got sufficient means and income. Appellant has no job or income of her own. She sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and claimed permanent alimony of Rs.30 lakhs. She also claimed Rs.25 lakhs as damages for the marital tort committed by the respondent.

3. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and the birth of two children in the said wedlock. But he denied the entire allegations of cruelty levelled against him. He contended that appellant and children left his company without his knowledge. It was also contended that the appellant is still working in the BPO industry and is also earning income from the online business carried on by her and is not entitled to get any amount as permanent alimony or damages.

4. Evidence consist of the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3.

5. After trial, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as permanent alimony to the appellant. Her claim for damages for marital tort was rejected by the Family Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court went wrong in limiting the claim for permanent alimony to Rs.5 lakhs; that the Family Court failed to appreciate the standard of living of the parties during the marital life, the cost of living, the age of the appellant and needs of the children; that the Family Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant has no job or income and she had to resign her job for the welfare of the family. Further, it was contended that the Family Court went wrong in dismissing the appellant’s claim for compensation for marital tort, though the Court found that the respondent subjected her to cruelty; that the Fami