under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage permanent alimony= directed the appellant herein to return dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the articles. = While determining the permanent alimony, the Court has to take into account not only the necessity of the wife but also the resources of the husband. Though the parameters are somewhat different, when compared to the pendent lite maintenance, the Court is under obligation to take into account the expenditure, which the wife has to incur to lead a respectable life. The status of the spouses before they parted, as well as the expenditure that is required to be incurred for education, maintenance of children, if any, also become important and relevant. =However, taking into account the fact that the appellant is also placed under obligation to pay maintenance to the minor daughter, we feel it just and proper to reduce the permanent alimony by Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, F.C.A is partly allowed by reducing the permanent alimony from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and in all other respects, the order of the trial Court, shall remain the same.

 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

AND

 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

F.C.A No.143 of 2013

JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,J)

The appellant and the respondent were married on 25.05.1996 and they were blessed with a female child.  However, differences have arisen between them.  The appellant filed O.P.No.446 of 2006 in the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for divorce and the decree granted therein has resulted in separation of the parties herein. The decree has also become final.

The respondent filed O.P.No.388 of 2011 under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and

 for return of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and

 articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-.  

She pleaded that she is not gainfully employed and it is difficult for her to maintain herself and her child.  

It was her further case that the appellant herein is holding a fairly superior post with salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month.  

The O.P was opposed by the appellant.  

Through its order, dated 23-01-2013, the trial Court allowed the O.P by awarding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as permanent alimony and 

directed the appellant herein to return dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the articles.  Hence, this appeal.

Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the fact that the respondent is also gainfully employed and that the appellant is saddled with the liability to pay monthly maintenance to the minor child.  He submits that the amount awarded by the trial Court is excessive. 

Sri C.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the claim was for Rs.10,00,000/- and though it was established that the appellant is drawing salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was awarded.

The matrimony between the appellant and the respondent came to an end with the decree passed by the Family Court. O.P.No.388 of 2011 was filed exclusively for permanent alimony, though such a relief could have been granted in the O.P filed for divorce. 

Before the trial Court, the respondent deposed as PW.1 and she filed Exs.P.1 to P.3.  

The documentary evidence, was in the form of order and decree in O.P.No.446 of 2006, school fee particulars and fee receipts.  

On behalf of the appellant RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to R.13 were filed.  Monthly pay slip is Ex.R.1.

While determining the permanent alimony, the Court has to take into account not only the necessity of the wife but also the resources of the husband.  

Though the parameters are somewhat different, when compared to the pendent lite maintenance, the Court is under obligation to take into account the expenditure, which the wife has to incur to lead a respectable life.   

The status of the spouses before they parted, as well as the expenditure that is required to be incurred for education, maintenance of children, if any, also become important and relevant. 

The trial Court has recorded a clear finding to the effect that the appellant was drawing more than Rs.1,00,000/- as gross salary 

and that no evidence was adduced by him to establish that the respondent is gainfully employed.  

The mere fact that she holds qualification, does not by itself lead to a conclusion that she is also employed.   

Strictly speaking, the order passed by the trial Court, does not warrant interference.  

However, taking into account the fact that the appellant is also placed under obligation to pay maintenance to the minor daughter, 

we feel it just and proper to reduce the permanent alimony by Rs.1,00,000/-.

Hence, F.C.A is partly allowed by reducing the permanent alimony from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and in all other respects, the order of the trial Court, shall remain the same.  

The amount covered by the decree as modified by this Court, shall be paid within a period of two months from today.   

The miscellaneous petition filed in this Family Court Appeal shall stand disposed of.   There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.   

_______________________

                                     K.G.SHANKAR, J.   

Dt:11.03.2013

rds/jsu