The court emphasized that permanent alimony must reflect adequate support based on current incomes, living standards, and potential future earnings of both parties, rejecting rigid formulas for determination.

ORDER :

1. These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Both the appeals are combined for disposal by a common order as those emerge from a common judgment.

3. In these appeals, the judgment dated 27.04.2021 delivered in Civil Proceeding No.455 of 2013 by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has been challenged.

4. Both the Appellants have challenged only the quantum of the permanent alimony as settled by the Judge, Family Court in favour of the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021. While deciding the said alimony, the Judge, Family Court has observed that the annual income of the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 is $72.900 U.S. Dollars per annum. On that basis and after making the due deduction from the salary, the permanent alimony has been quantified at Rs.50,00,000/- to be paid by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021, the Petitioner in the said civil proceeding. It has been further directed that the said amount shall be paid within a period of three months, failing which the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 shall be at liberty to lunch a proceeding for realizing the said money through the process of the court. According to the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021, the said amount is inadequate to maintain the standard of life the said Appellant (the wife) is accustomed to live. On the other hand, the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 has stated that the said quantification is not based on any tenable income record, but simply on the basis of a statement made by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in his cross-examination. The said amount of permanent alimony warrants to be rationalised. In support of this contention, Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 has referred to a document, which has been admitted at the time of argument before the Judge, Family Court (Ext.X) to demonstrate that according to the said document, the annual gross income of the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 is 58,410.49 U.S. Dollars (the gross pay). After the statutory deduction, the said amount comes down to 57,303.81 U.S. Dollars. Mr. Rath, learned counsel has submitted that after deduction, the net income will come down to 42,262 U.S. Dollars, equivalent of Rs.34, 96,757/-, on conversion to Indian Rupee. Therefore, the income per month would be Rs.2, 91,396/-.

5. Mr. R.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant of MATA No.38 of 2021 has controverted the said statement made by Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel by contending that according to the corporate earning summary, which has been produced by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, his net salary per annum is $57,303.81 after the statutory deduction. If that amount is converted to the Indian Rupee, it will come to Rs.47,41,317.23. Thus, the monthly salary would be Rs.3,95,109.76. True it is that the deduction that has been shown by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel is reflected in the corporate earning salary statement, Ext.X, which was produced before the Court below at the stage of argument and was admitted in presence of the parties.

6. At the time of admission of MATA No.37 of 2021, this Court had passed the order dated 06.07.2021 directing the Appellant (husband) to deposit Rs.30 lakhs in advance as condition-precedent for admission of the appeal. The said amount was paid by three demand drafts, as reflected in the memorandum dated 04.08.2021 filed by the Appellant of MATA No.37 of 2021 in this Court. In terms of the order dated 06.07.2021, the entire amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been invested in the term- deposit in the State Bank of India for earning the interest. Initially the investment was made for six months in the name of the Regis