Per Amitav K. Gupta, J : The instant appeal is arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.10 of 2008, whereby the marriage of the appellant, Reena Kumari @ Apporva and respondent, Shree Sandeep Santosh was dissolved in terms of Section 13 (i) (a) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/-per month or fixed alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/-in lump sum to be paid by the respondent within six months from the date of order.

2. In the present appeal the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage however, she has impugned the quantum of permanent alimony and maintenance of Rs.7,00,000/-as too meagre.

3. Since the only issue to be adjudicated is with respect to the quantum of maintenance and alimony of Rs.7,00,000/-. It would be necessary to refer the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as under :-

“Permanent alimony and maintenance – (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant [ the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chase, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].”

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the monthly salary of the respondent at the time of filing of Matrimonial Suit was Rs.22,000/-and evidence was laid that the respondent earns Rs.1,00,000/-from the landed property situated at his native place, besides the monthly salary. It is submitted that the appellant is gainfully employed as Lecturer in National Institute of Technology (N.I.T.) Kurushetra, Haryana presently drawing a salary of more than Rs.70,000/-. It urged that the appellant does not have any fixed source of income and considering the steep rise in the cost of living the alimony of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs) should be enhanced. It is urged that the appellant is residing in her parental house and dependent upon her aged parents.

5. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that no doubt the salary statement of the respondent, for the month of June, 2014 shows that his gross salary is Rs.73,000/-per month but the respondent had taken loan from the bank to pay the permanent alimony amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, as ordered by the learned Trial Court. That he is paying monthly E.M.I of Rs.8,500/-to the bank for liquidation of the loan amount; that he has also taken home loan from his C.P.F account, for which Rs.17,000/-per month is deducted and his net take hand pay comes to around Rs.31,000/-.

6. Heard. This Court had directed the p