Permanent alimony must be just and reasonable, considering the financial status and needs of the parties, with a significant increase granted based on circumstances.

JUDGMENT :
D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short called as 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh in R.F.A. No. 2 of 2010.

By the same, the First Appellate Court while allowing the Appeal filed by the Appellant (Defendant-wife) under section 96 of the Code in part although has confirmed the decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with the Respondent (Plaintiff-husband) yet the quantum of permanent alimony of lump sum of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the Trial Court to Rs. 6,000/- per annum to be paid by the Respondent (Plaintiff-husband) to the Appellant (Defendant-wife).

2. For convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to as per their position assigned before the Trial Court in the suit.

3. The Plaintiff-husband had filed the application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the prayer to pass a decree annulling his marriage with the Defendant-wife. The suit stood decreed by dissolving the marriage between the parties. While doing so, the Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards permanent alimony to be paid by the Plaintiff-husband to the Defendant (wife). The Defendant (wife) being aggrieved by the same has carried the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court while confirming the decree of divorce as granted by the Trial Court has enhanced the quantum of permanent alimony indicating its mode of payment as already stated.

The courts below on examination of the evidence let in by the parties and upon their evaluation have concurrently held that the Plaintiff-husband has made out a case for dissolution of his marriage with the Defendant-wife by establishing the ground of cruelty.

4. In course of hearing on admission, learned counsel, for the Appellant's submission that such concurrent finding of the courts below is the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence being not accepted, the Appeal has, been admitted only on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court while confirming the decree of divorce granted by the Trial' Court at the instance of the Respondent (Plaintiff-husband) is right in awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 6,000/- per annum to be paid by the Respondent (Plaintiff-husband) to the Appellant (Defendant-wife)"?

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Keeping in view the submissions made, I have also gone through the judgments passed by the courts below.

6. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties had taken place in the year 1986. At the time of institution of the suit in the year 2007, the Plaintiff-husband was aged about 45 years and the Defendant-wife was then 40 years of age. They are now within the age group of 55 to 60 years.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent'(Plaintiff-husband) that the (Plaintiff-husband) was earning his livelihood by working as a labourer which for his growing age has now substantially reduced. Learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant-wife) asserts that the (Defendant-wife) has no such source of income of her own and being a homemaker, she was with her grown up children and that state is still continuing when her need for medical treatment has also increased like' anything. The learned counsel for the parties, however, submit that the liability of the Plaintiff-husband to pay the permanent alimony to the Defendant-wife is not in dispute.

Keeping in view all the aforesaid, coming to the fixation of the quantum of permanent alimony in the facts and circumstances as those emerge from the evidence on record further taking into account all other relevant factors for the purpose;