JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. MISHRA, J. - This appeal, preferred by the –wife, is directed against the judgment dtd. 18.11.2014 of learned Judge Family Court, Puri in C.P. No.403 of 2010 whereby and where under the marriage between the appellant and respondent-husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony of the wife and future maintenance of her daughter.

2. The petitioner married respondent on 25.5.2003 as per Hindu Caste and Customs. From their wed-lock, on 10.06.2005, a daughter was born. The wife, on account of ill-treatment meted out to her, stayed separately and for having not returned, the husband instituted a proceeding for divorce on 17.12.2010 on the ground of desertion since 05.12.2005.

The wife controverted the factum of desertion but admitted relationship and birth of a daughter. In her written statement, she had alleged second marriage of the husband and filing of FIR at Chandanpur Police Station.

Considering the rival pleadings, learned lower Court framed one issue “as to whether the respondent-wife deserted the petitioner-husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition”.

The husband examined himself and his mother. The wife examined herself, her mother and brother-in-law. LIC policy and copies of sale deeds and willnama were exhibited from the side of the husband while copy of order-sheet of a proceeding before the Women Commissioner and record of rights in the name of husband’s father were exhibited at the behest of wife.

Analysing the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the learned lower court has recorded a finding that on the ground of desertion, the petition for divorce deserves to be considered and consequently dissolved the marriage dtd. 25.5.2003 U/s. 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Incidentally learned lower court made assessment of the documentary evidence including the fact that prior to marriage, husband had secured one LIC policy in favour of respondent-wife paying premium and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) towards permanent alimony of the wife and for future maintenance of their daughter.

3. In this appeal, the said decree of divorce and granting of permanent alimony have been challenged but in course of argument Mr. Sangram Rath, learned counsel for the appellant-wife expressly abandoned the challenge to the decree of divorce. It is unequivocally submitted that this appeal may be confined to the amount of permanent alimony which is inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued with vehemence that the respondent-husband having source of income from business and ancestral landed property, is capable to maintain the appellant and her minor daughter and for that the amount of permanent alimony be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Mr. Trilochan Panigrahi, learned Counsel appearing for the husband repelled the above contention stating that husband has neither any income from business nor has any landed property to own and possess for which he is unable to pay even the awarded amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. As the challenge to the decree of divorce is taken back, this appeal is confined to a sole point - as to whether the permanent alimony amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Lower Court is to be enhanced ?

6. It is indisputable that the respondent-husband does not own any landed property in his name. The sale deeds and record of rights which are filed and exhibited do not indicate the extent of land under command of the respondent and the income therefrom. Though in the written statement at paragraph 9, the respondent-wife had pleaded that her husband was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the business, the evidence in regard to the detail of the same is conspicuously silent. Husband as P.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence at paragraph 6 that prior to marriage, after engagement, he had paid pre