Permanent alimony must consider the circumstances of both spouses and their financial capabilities, upheld when the respondent lacks income.

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30-12-2006 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea in Civil Suit No. 17 - A of 2006 whereby permanent alimony of Rs. 2000/- was granted to the respondent / plaintiff under S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1955).

2. Admittedly, the appellant was married to the respondent in the year 1977 and had four children from the marital wedlock. It is also not in dispute that the appellant married Sita Devi during the subsistence of the marriage with the respondent and has two children from her. Civil Suit No. 2 - A of 89 instituted by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh vide judgment dated 25-9-1990. The appellant has the custody of the children. The respondent lives at her maternal home. The gross salary of the appellant was Rs. 9985.97 in the month of November, 2006.

3. The respondent / plaintiff had, in her application under S.25 of the Act, 1955 stated that she was living in her maternal home at Jhagrakhand and was unable to maintain herself. The appellant did not even pay to her the meagre maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month granted in proceedings under S.125 of CrPC. A permanent alimony of Rs. 6,000/- per month was claimed.

4. The appellant denied the claim and pleaded that the respondent had sufficient income from knitting and tailoring as also from poultry. Since he had a large family to support, the application under S.25 of the Act was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, on appreciation of evidence, granted permanent alimony of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of application till lifetime of the respondent herein.

6. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has impugned the order dated 30-12-2006 on the sole ground that the permanent alimony awarded by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Manendragarh being excessive should be reduced to at least Rs. 1250/- per month. No other ground was urged.

7. No one appeared for the respondent at the time of final hearing.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the only point which requires consideration is whether the permanent alimony awarded by the 2nd Additional District Judge is liable to be reduced.

9. S.25 of the Act, 1955 reads as under:
"25. 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 immoveable 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