ORDER

Date : 15-06-2022 (A.M. Bujor Barua,J)

Heard Mr. P.P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant husband and Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent wife.

2. The respondent wife Smt. Debojani Sarmah instituted Misc. (J) Case No. 13/2016 arising out of Title Suit (M) No. 5/2014 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming for one time permanent alimony of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) or in the alternative an alimony @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month for the life of the respondent wife. The marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 20.04.1989 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the matrimonial relationship, two sons were born in the year 1990 and 1993 respectively and at present, although both the sons are major, they are residing with the respondent wife. The respondent wife instituted a Title Suit (M) No. 5/2015 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jorhat against the appellant husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the g round of cruelty and desertion. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 by which the marriage between the parties was dissolved and a decree of divorce was granted.

3. In the Misc. (J) Case No. 13/2016, for permanent alimony or month alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent wife produced certain materials on evidence claiming that the appellant husband is a Government employee of Axom Rajyik Madak Droyba Nibarrani Parisad, where he works as a Field Organizer on a monthly salary basis of Rs. 3,200/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred Only) per month. He is also a renowned priest of the locality and that he earns a substantial earning in furtherance of his occupation as a priest. The appellant husband is also an agent under the Tata AIG and further, he also has landed property of more than 25 bighas of agricultural land from which he earns a substantial income.

4. In respect of such materials on evidence being brought in by the respondent wife, the appellant husband apart from denying the evidence brought by the respondent wife had not led any further evidence nor made any statement as to what actually his income is. Although, technical objections against the evidence brought in by the respondent wife was made, but the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 30.11.2021 took a view that it is a well settled principle of law that the onus is on the husband to establish with necessary materials on evidence if there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain his wife and that if any maintenance is imposed, the obligation thereof would be beyond his control.

5. The learned Court by referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, took note of a legal proposition that if the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn and accordingly, it can be held that the husband is under the obligation to provide a maintenance in order to enable the wife to maintain her standard of living which she otherwise could have been entitled. For arriving at such conclusion, the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, had referred and the extracted the relevant proposition in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui (supra), where the High Court had reduced the monthly maintenance of the wife to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month and the Supreme Court was of the view that it would be extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage with Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also arrived at its conclusion that if a plea is advanced by the