JUDGMENT

MFA No.8526/2016 is filed by the wife and MFA No.3916/2016 is filed by the husband; both these appeals are filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed in M.C.No.180/2014 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, by which the petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage, was allowed and directed the husband to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as a permanent alimony to the wife.

2. MFA No.8526/2016 is filed by the wife challenging the impugned judgment for non-granting of permanent alimony of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and MFA No.3916/2016 is filed by the husband seeking to set aside the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2016 insofar as directing the appellant-husband to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as a permanent alimony.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife.

4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 06.12.2000 at Venkataramana Temple, Udupi, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of wedlock, a male child viz., Athreya is born on 15.05.2004 and the said child is in the custody of the respondent-wife. The parties to the proceedings are highly qualified and they are Doctors by profession. It is averred that the respondent- wife has caused cruelty on petitioner-husband and pleaded various instances of cruelty as a ground for decree of divorce. It is further averred that the respondent-wife is highly qualified and working as a Senior Lecturer in A.B.Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangaluru and drawing more than Rs.35,000/- per month and in addition to that she is doing private practice and she has lucrative income from the private practice, hence she is not entitled for permanent alimony. It is also averred that the petitioner-husband is required to take care of his aged parents as he is the sole bread earner in the family. He is staying at a rented premises and he has no other means to pay the alimony sought for by the respondent-wife. The Family Court has erred in directing the petitioner-husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife. The petitioner- husband has assailed the impugned judgment insofar as grant of permanent alimony to the wife.

5. The respondent-wife has entered appearance before the Family Court and filed the statement of objections by denying the allegation of cruelty. The respondent-wife has admitted the relationship and the birth of the child. It is averred that the petitioner-husband is highly qualified and is earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month and sought for permanent alimony of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to the wife and her son. It is further averred that she is staying in a rented premises and she has to incur her personal expenditure, the expenditure on her son towards his wellbeing and education and the salary which she is getting from the Dental College is not sufficient to meet the requirements. The Family Court has erred in granting only a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony and hence, sought for grant of Rs.1,30,00,000/-.

6. The Family Court, on the basis of pleading and evidence, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The respondent-wife has examined herself as RW.1 and another witness as RW2 and produced Exs.R1 to R36. The petitioner-husband examined himself as PW.1 and examined other five witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 6 and produced Ex.P1 to P16. The Family Court, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner-husband by dissolving the marriage and further directed the petitioner-husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeals have been filed by the petitioner-husband seeking to set aside the award of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- and respondent-wife h