JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Both the proceedings stem from the judgment and order dated 21.01.2012 rendered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati (hereinafter for short also referred to as the learned Court below). As is patent from the rival orientations, the focus of the competing analysis is the permanent alimony accordable to the respondent-cross objector herein. We have heard Mr. A.P. Lahiri, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. S.D. Choudhury, Advocate and Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the cross-objector assisted by Ms. J. Purkayastha, Advocate. 2. Sans the inessential details having regard to the limited contour of appraisal in the instant adjudicative pursuit, it is suffice to record that the cross-objector, contending that she was the married wife of the appellant, the ceremony having been solemnized on 15.04.2007 at Guwahati had sought for a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act), before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati. The petition registered as FC (Civil) Case No. 396/ 2009 embodied assertions in support of the relief sought for imputing physical and mental cruelty as the central ground therefor. She stated that in course of the negotiation for the marriage broached by the parents of the appellant, it was represented that he was a businessman with monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and that in order to develop his new business, he was willing to marry the cross-objector considering her experience in the sales sector. According to her, she at the relevant point of time was working as an Advisor in Bazaz Alliance Insurance Company at Guwahati with handsome income. The proposal eventually materialized and the marriage between the parties was ceremonised as per the Hindu rites and customs. She averred that as sought for by him, her parents paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to expand his existing business. The cross-objector further averred that subsequent to the marriage she came to learn that the appellant did not have any permanent business and that though it was represented earlier that he had a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, his family including his mother was dependent on the pension amount of his deceased father. She however in categorical terms stated that the appellant had sufficient landed property at Varanasi. 3. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, his family including his mother was dependent on the pension amount of his deceased father. She however in categorical terms stated that the appellant had sufficient landed property at Varanasi. 3. The narration pertaining to the allegation of cruelty not being relevant for the present exercise does not call for any dilation. As the appellant initially failed to appear in the proceedings before the learned Court below and take timely steps, it was ordered to proceed ex parte against him. On his prayer however, he was allowed to file his written statement through his learned counsel. The appellant in his written statement denied the marriage between the parties and strongly refuted the imputations bearing on the accusation of cruelty leveled against him. While admitting the receipt of Rs. 1 lakh from the cross-objector towards contribution as capital in his business, he referred to her only as a new partner in the enterprise. He denied any physical relationship with the cross-objector citing his physical disability incurred from Polio and repudiated her endeavour for a decree for divorce as one to reap wrongful gains. He denied to own any landed property and also any income from business and instead alleged that the cross-objector had taken away the total working capital along with the accounts of the concerned firm and the keys of the locker of the bank. 4. In course of the trial, the cross-objector examined herself and three other witnesses. The applicant did neither adduce any evidence nor cross-examined the witnesses of the cross-objector. The learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order concluded that the parties were married as per the Hindu rites and customs, but dissolved the same on the ground of proved cruelty. Referring to the averments made by the cross-objector in her petition for divorce, the learned Court below awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as permanent alimony. In arriving at this conclusion it also referred to the evidence on record to the effect that the appellant was a businessman and had landed property at Varanasi and further the "Streedhan" worth Rs. 18 lakhs carried by the cross-objector to the matrimonial home had not been returned to her. In computing the aforementioned quantum of permanent alimony, the learned Court below took note of the 'age', the 'status of living', 'maintenance' and 'shelter' of the cross-objector and also the capability of the appellant. 18 lakhs carried by the cross-objector to the matrimonial home had not been returned to her. In computing the aforementioned quantum of permanent alimony, the learned Court below took note of the 'age', the 'status of living', 'maintenance' and 'shelter' of the cross-objector and also the capability of the appellant. Thereby, the cross-objector was also allowed to operate the bank locker No. 93 in Axis Bank, Sigra Branch, Varanasi in presence of the appellant to receive back the "Streedhan" articles, if any, deposited therein. 5. The parties having been permitted, have exchanged in the instant proceedings, additional pleadings bringing on record essential facts and documents bearing on their respective stands on the issue of permanent alimony. Further, in compliance of the order dated 10.09.2012 of this Court, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid by the appellant as interim payment subject to final orders. 6. Mr. Lahiri, has insistently argued that there being no basis whatsoever for quantification of the permanent alimony at Rs. 5 lakhs, the direction to that effect contained in the impugned judgment and order is patently erroneous and is liable to be adjudged non est in law. Referring to paragraph 12 of the petition for divorce, in particular, the learned counsel has urged that a plain reading thereof having demolished entirely the case of the cross-objector for permanent alimony, the learned Court below in absence of any semblance of evidence on the income and the other resources of the appellant fell in gross error in computing Rs. 5 lakhs as such. According to Mr. Lahiri, the cross-objector having totally failed to discharge her burden to prove the income of the appellant as well as his other assets to establish his financial capability as contemplated in Section 25 of the Act. The computation of Rs. 5 lakhs as permanent alimony by the learned Court below in absence of any discussion or reason is wholly fallacious and is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice, he urged. Adverting to the pre-requisites mandated by the aforementioned legal provision, Mr. Lahiri not only repudiated the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the learned trial Court to be wholly illogical, he criticized the same to be incurably illegal being devoid of any reason in support thereof as envisaged in Section 17 of the Family Court's Act, 1984. Adverting to the pre-requisites mandated by the aforementioned legal provision, Mr. Lahiri not only repudiated the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the learned trial Court to be wholly illogical, he criticized the same to be incurably illegal being devoid of any reason in support thereof as envisaged in Section 17 of the Family Court's Act, 1984. Adverting exhaustively to the pleadings of the appellant before this Court, the learned counsel insisted that not only he as a victim of Polio is physically incapable of pooling the necessary efforts and industry to earn a handsome living, he has no landed property anywhere and presently has a income of Rs. 3,000/- per month through private tuitions. The learned counsel to reinforce this plea has relied amongst others on a certificate issued by the Tehsildar Sadar, District-Varanasi and also the acknowledgement slips of the returns submitted by him for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. That presently the mother of the appellant is seriously ill has been underlined as well. On being queried by this Court, however Mr. Lahiri very fairly observed that if deemed fit the cross-objector may be allowed permanent alimony of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in addition to Rs. 40,000/- already deposited but payable in easy installments. He referred to two judgments of the Hon'ble Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts to buttress his contentions. 7. Mr. Bhowmik, per contra, has argued with reference to Section 25 of the Act to highlight that the abstinence of the appellant from the proceedings before the learned trial Court to contest it on merits and the limited challenge against the grant of permanent alimony before this Court unmistakably exhibits a conduct lacking in bona fide. While contending that his pleaded stand of denial of marriage is shockingly unconscientious, the learned counsel has urged that the documents furnished by him in support of his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- are of no probative value whatsoever. According to Mr. Bhowmik, not only there is lack of denial on his part qua ownership of any immovable property, as the minimum earnings through teaching as a full time avocation in the present day context would be anywhere around Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-, his plea of monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- is a myth and a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-, his plea of monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- is a myth and a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. Negating the assailment of want of basis for computation of the permanent alimony made by the learned Court below, Mr. Bhowmik referred to the petition for divorce as well as the application filed by the cross-objector under Section 25 of the Act and the evidence to that effect. While relying on the documents annexed to the affidavit of the cross-objector in the proceedings before this Court to demonstrate the financial soundness of the appellant, the learned counsel has contended that having regard to the lavish lifestyle led by him (appellant), the amount of permanent alimony in the attendant facts and circumstances ought to be adequately enhanced. That the cross-objector is only a graduate and that in the face of her family obligations to nurse and look after her aged and ailing parents on whom she is otherwise fully dependent, she is rendered unable to take up any employment has been underlined to endorse her claim for enhanced amount of permanent alimony. 8. Apart from the rival projections in the pleadings of the parties before the learned Court below, the cross-objector in her application under Section 25 of the Act before it had elaborated that the appellant deals as investor and trader in share market having trading account in "Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.", "Kotak Securities" and various other financial agencies besides being a share holder in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Glaxo Pharma, Hero Honda, Infosys, ITC, Jay Prakash Associates, Mahindra & Mahindra, N Varties, Satyam, TCS, Micront etc. She stated further that he has sufficient investments by way of fixed deposits in banks, KVP, NSC and in post office and that his average monthly income is more than Rs. 30,000/- and his total assets in share trading and investments is Rs. 50 lakhs, apart from his share in the paternal landed property in Varanasi. According to her, his father was a retired Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department and on his death his mother is receiving family pension. She stated further that the appellant's own brother and his wife are both doctors by profession and that he therefore is free from any family obligation to maintain any member thereof. According to her, his father was a retired Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department and on his death his mother is receiving family pension. She stated further that the appellant's own brother and his wife are both doctors by profession and that he therefore is free from any family obligation to maintain any member thereof. She averred as well that she is fully dependent on her parents who are retired and have been suffering from various ailments so much so, that a substantial amount of their pension is being spent for their treatment. According to her, there being no other family member, she has to remain wholly engaged to look after her parents, for which she is rendered unable to seek any employment for income of her own. She had by this application sought for an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as permanent alimony. 9. While the affidavit evidence of the cross-objector is almost a replica of her petition for divorce, that of her witnesses however do not refer much to the income and other properties of the appellant qua the issue of permanent alimony. In her additional affidavit evidence, the cross-objector valued her "Streedhan" receipts to be Rs. 18 lakhs. Though she admitted of a slight deformity in his right leg she denied any physical disability of his. 10. In his affidavit in the instant proceedings, the appellant has reiterated that he is affected by Polio since boyhood for which he is rendered unable to move without clutches and one attendant According to him, he has to spend Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/- per month for his medical expenses. He has affirmed on oath that his small share business has since been closed due to heavy loss suffered by him and that he has presently a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- through private tuitions at his mother's residence. He has categorically stated that he has neither any additional income nor is he possessed any property within the territory of India. He has averred that he, in fact is dependent on his mother and has no residence or vehicle of his own as alleged. That the cross-objector is academically qualified and competent to earn her living and that considering her age, she has prospects of re-marriage have been highlighted as well to plead against the claim of permanent alimony to her. 11. That the cross-objector is academically qualified and competent to earn her living and that considering her age, she has prospects of re-marriage have been highlighted as well to plead against the claim of permanent alimony to her. 11. The cross-objector while reiterating her averments before the learned court below has clarified in her affidavit that the appellant is the owner of a flat being the entire ground floor of a three storied building in a busy area in Varanasi city which is his paternal property where he and his mother reside. Citing the present market value thereof to be Rs. 50 lakhs, she has further pleaded that the appellant has an investment by way of fixed deposit in KVP, NSC etc, of Rs. 24 lakhs approximately, a fact disclosed to her by him on 24.04.2007. On the aspects of the affluent lifestyle of the appellant, the cross-objector in paragraph 3.6 of her affidavit stated as hereunder: 3.6 That the deponent/petitioner states that the financial position of the opposite party/appellant can also be ascertained from his affluent and lavish lifestyle and monthly expenditure of the opposite party for keeping two maid servants and one gardener, maintaining two high breed dogs, viz. one Alsatian dog and one Russian Breed Bullmastiff, a huge aquarium with costly fishes, 4 A/C furnished rooms, one scooter, one mature car, expensive food habits etc; and for all these recurring monthly expenditure of 20 to 25 thousand, which the petitioner experienced during her stay in, the matrimonial home during 2007-2008. 12. While reiterating that he is free from any obligation to maintain any family member, she has averred that his father is a patient of blood sugar, impaired hearing, thyroid, lungs problems etc, and that her mother is suffering from critical cardiac ailments warranting surgical intervention. She has reiterated that in absence of any other family member and her consequential sole responsibility to look after her old and ailing parents, she is not in a position to engage herself in any income yielding avocation. 13. We have extended our anxious consideration to the rival pleadings, the documents on record and the arguments advanced. As alluded hereinabove, the debate centers around the issue of permanent alimony alone. 13. We have extended our anxious consideration to the rival pleadings, the documents on record and the arguments advanced. As alluded hereinabove, the debate centers around the issue of permanent alimony alone. Having regard to the materials on record, and in absence of any challenge thereto, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the marriage between the parties and the dissolution thereof do not warrant any deliberation or interference. Noticeably, the appellant had initially denied the marriage and had acknowledged the cross-objector to be only a partner in his business. He for all practical purposes abandoned the proceedings before the learned Court below after a certain stage and did neither adduce any evidence on his behalf nor cross-examine the cross-objector and her witnesses. In the face of the proved marriage between the parties and in absence of any challenge thereto by him, the plea of want of bona fide in his conduct cannot thus be readily discarded. It was wholly unexpected of the appellant by any standard to have denied his marriage with the cross-objector, a fact otherwise overwhelmingly proved by the evidence on record. His selective assailment of the amount of permanent alimony granted by the learned Court below also does not augur well qua his overall approach to the matrimonial alliance as well as the lis and is demonstrative of his endeavour to shirk his responsibilities vis-a-vis the cross-objector. 14. On the aspect of his income, the documents relied upon by him before this Court do not inspire confidence. It is apparent from the certificate of the Tehsildar Sadar, District-Varanasi dated 30.07.2012 that it is based on his affidavit. This document, therefore, cannot be accepted to be an unimpeachable piece of evidence of the contents thereof. The acknowledgement slips accompanying the income tax returns of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12 to 2012-13 also do not clinch the issue for him in this regard. Though, the documents appended to the affidavit filed by the cross-objector before this Court also are of no decisive significance applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the rival assertions contained in the pleadings of the parties have been analyzed in juxtaposition to resolve the issue. Though, the documents appended to the affidavit filed by the cross-objector before this Court also are of no decisive significance applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the rival assertions contained in the pleadings of the parties have been analyzed in juxtaposition to resolve the issue. The affidavit evidence of the cross-objector, which as aforestated is in reiteration of the contents of the petition for divorce refers to the appellant's business in connection with which he amongst others used to visit places outside Varanasi. In reiteration of her version in the petition for divorce, in her affidavit before this Court, she has detailed the particulars of his investments and transactions in connection therewith. She has furnished as well facts pertaining to the family property also in his possession. Details of his lifestyle and the logistics therefor have also been provided in the affidavit affirmed to be true to her knowledge. Noticeably, the appellant has not denied the assertions relating to the family property of which he is in possession along with his mother. The elaborations provided by the cross-objector in her pleadings before the forums, therefore, are not wholly incompatible to discard the same as untruthful. To decide the issue of permanent alimony, the materials on record as a whole have to be construed and any isolated approach would be inexpedient. The cross-objector till the dissolution of the marriage between the parties was an integral part of the family of the appellant and can by no means be alienated therefrom as a stranger. Being a part of the family and also the life of the appellant it is quite likely that she was a privy to informations amongst others relatable to the appellant's of income, investments, and lifestyle. The plea that the cross-objector by her admissions in the petition for divorce had demolished her case for permanent alimony, therefore, does not appeal to us. Her pleadings in full need be traversed to separate the grain from the chaff. 15. Significantly, the appellant has no dependent member of his family to sustain. Though his plea of monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- from private tuition is wholly unconvincing even assuming it to be so, he admittedly has a monthly expenditure of Rs. 6,00/- to Rs. 8,00/- for medical treatment. In contra distinction, admittedly the cross-objector though a graduate is unemployed. 15. Significantly, the appellant has no dependent member of his family to sustain. Though his plea of monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- from private tuition is wholly unconvincing even assuming it to be so, he admittedly has a monthly expenditure of Rs. 6,00/- to Rs. 8,00/- for medical treatment. In contra distinction, admittedly the cross-objector though a graduate is unemployed. She has to nurse and care her aged ailing parents on whom she is otherwise fully dependent. Their family is sustained by the pension of her parents. That they are ailing for which recurring expenditure is warranted is also evident from her affidavit as well as the accompanying medical documents. Her plea of being rendered unable to take up an employment for independent income in this factual setting commends for acceptance. Her prospects of remarriage as pleaded on behalf of the appellant are presently uncertain. In the overall view of the matter, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the cross-objector is entitled to permanent alimony as contemplated in section 25 of the Act. Even assuming that the appellant has a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, even after accommodating his medical expenses in our estimate at least Rs. 1,000/- per month ought to be available towards the maintenance/ alimony of the cross-objector. Having regard to the fact that she is presently aged about 34 years and the average life span of an Indian lady i.e. 65 years, an amount of Rs. 3,72,000/- (1000 x 31 x 12) is payable as permanent alimony. From a very modest estimate of the investments and the family property of the appellant, in our comprehension having regard to the factors envisaged in section 25 of the Act, a further amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the minimum can be assimilated in the quantum of permanent alimony. As it is, having regard to the attendant ponderables on the exercise undertaken a rough and ready measure on singular facts and circumstances has to be adopted. However with due regard to the materials on record, in our view the cross-objector in lump sum is entitled to an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs by way of permanent alimony payable by the appellant to her. Needless to say, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- already deposited by him would stand deducted from this amount. The appellant would pay the balance amount in 3 equal monthly installments, commencing from 1st October, 2012. 7 lakhs by way of permanent alimony payable by the appellant to her. Needless to say, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- already deposited by him would stand deducted from this amount. The appellant would pay the balance amount in 3 equal monthly installments, commencing from 1st October, 2012. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed. The rival pleas of the parties are answered accordingly. No costs. Appeal dismissed.