Permanent alimony is determined based on the financial capacities and conduct of both parties, especially focusing on responsibilities to the child.

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Sri SSR. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dr. C.S. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in F.C.O.P.No.750 of 2007 by the learned Family Court at Hyderabad.

3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 14.02.1992 according to Hindu rights and customs. It is as an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a son on 26.04.2001. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. The respondent herein filed a petition herein under Section 13 (1)(ia) and Sections 25 & 26 of Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant, seeking dissolution of marriage and for permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. He had contended that the appellant herein is a medical practitioner and he is Nephrologist. He used to stay in Bangladesh at the time of filing the said O.P. He was not competent to give birth to the child, as his sperm count is very low, therefore, the respondent herein has taken treatment i.e., IVF. She was blessed with a son on 26.04.2001. The respondent used to maintain illicit relationship with nurse etc, thus the appellant herein subjected the respondent herein to cruelty. He did not take care of the boy. On the said grounds, the respondent sought dissolution of marriage and also permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. The appellant herein opposed the said petition, contending, that she is also a medical practitioner and he never harassed her. In fact, she falsely implicated him in a criminal case, more particularly for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. She is also a medical practitioner and she was employed before marriage itself. Therefore, she is not entitled to any permanent alimony.

6. Vide impugned order, dated 17.12.2012 passed in F.C.O.P.No.750 of 2007, the learned Family Court at Hyderabad, had granted dissolution of marriage, considering the fact, the appellant herein also gave consent for decree of divorce. On consideration of the said fact, that the boy is with the respondent/wife and that the appellant herein is earning more money, the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein.

7. To prove the said claim, the respondent herein examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P23. To disprove the same, the appellant herein examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to R66. On consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order, dated 21.08.2014, the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, had granted decree of divorce and awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein.

8. The appellant herein filed the present appeal, challenging the impugned order, to an extent of awarding the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein.

9. Vide order, dated 02.01.2014, this Court had granted interim suspension of the impugned order on the condition of the appellant herein depositing of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and on such deposit, this Court granted liberty to the respondent herein to withdraw the said amount. It is a specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had already deposited the said amount in compliance with the same and the respondent has withdrawn the said amount. The said fact is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that now the dispute is only with regard to balance of Rs.15,00,000/-.

10. Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent is also a medical practitioner and is employed before the marriage itself. There is a sufficient means to maintain herself. She has implicated the appellant herein in a criminal case. Therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. He further submitted that she has taken interim custody of the boy and the appellant had pai