JUDGMENT Heard the parties. Both the appeals arise out of Judgment and Order of Family Court, Bettiah, West Champaran dated 30th October, 2007 in Divorce Case No. 42 of 2003/ 18 of 2005. Sweta Kumari wife of Niraj Kumar has challenged grant of Divorce and has prayer for higher alimony. The other side wants reduction in alimony. 2. Learned court below, while granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband, had granted permanent alimony of rupees five lakhs. Half of the amount was paid by the husband as recorded in the order passed on 8-5-2009 in the appeal preferred by the husband. For remaining half, today a demand draft in the name of the wife Sweta Kumari dated 27-2-2012 drawn upon the State Bank of India, Danapur branch has been produced by learned counsel for the husband and handed over to learned counsel for Sweta Kumari. For receipt of the said demand draft, counsel for the appellant- Sweta Kumari shall make an endorsement to that effect in the order-sheet of Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2010. Since Sweta Kumari is present in court, her counsel has handed over the draft to her in the court itself. 3. Although the appeal preferred by the wife SwetaKumari is directed against the entire judgment and order dated 30th October, 2007 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah has allowed Divorce Case No. 42/2003/18/2005 filed by the husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the wife declined to cross-examine Niraj Kumar ( husband ) and she stated to the court that she does not wish to cross-examine him and consented that the witness may be discharged. She further orally stated in the court that she understood that not cross-examining the witness Niraj Kumar may be fatal for her case but even then she was not willing to cross-examine him. Since P.W.1 deposed in favour of his case and was not cross-examined, he did not adduce further evidence. Sweta Kumari has not deposed to contest the claim for divorce nor she produced any evidence on her behalf. Her only insistence was that final order disposing of the case may be passed considering her petition dated 5-10-2007. Since P.W.1 deposed in favour of his case and was not cross-examined, he did not adduce further evidence. Sweta Kumari has not deposed to contest the claim for divorce nor she produced any evidence on her behalf. Her only insistence was that final order disposing of the case may be passed considering her petition dated 5-10-2007. In view of un-controverted evidence of the husband, Niraj Kumar, the court below rightly considered all the facts and circumstances appearing on the record and granted decree of divorce. That part of the judgment cannot be faulted with. 4. So far as issue of alimony is concerned, Niraj Kumar took the stand that he had no earning or landed property whereas Sweta Kumari is a teacher in a local school at Danapur. This was denied by the opposite party. The learned Family Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case allowed permanent alimony of rupees five lakhs in favour of Sweta Kumari. As noted earlier, that amount has already been paid. 5. On behalf of Sweta Kumari a prayer has been made to enhance the amount of permanent alimony suitably on the basis of her claim before the court below submitted through written argument dated 5-10-2007. In that written argument it has been mentioned that the husband belongs to a well-to-do family and is a doctor having good source of income. After the marriage in 1993 the husband left India for higher education in Russia in 1994. For meeting the cost of studies abroad he took rupees two lakhs from her father and on return he pressed for divorce. She claimed that the husband is earning as a doctor and she should be paid at least an amount of rupees twenty one lakhs by way of alimony so that she can maintain herself in appropriate status as the wife of a doctor who received education abroad. 6. By filing a petition in M.A.49 of 2010 she has brought on record an invitation card as annexure-1 to show that her husband Niraj Kumar jointly with his father Dr. Nirmal Kumar had opened a new clinic described as “ Kumar Endoscopic Centre at Kotwali Chowk, Bettiah”, on 20th June, 2004. Name Board of Dr. Niraj Kumar showing that he is working as a doctor, has been photographed and annexed as annexure-2. Annexure-3 is prescription of a patient Ajay Kumar dated 15-11-2011. Nirmal Kumar had opened a new clinic described as “ Kumar Endoscopic Centre at Kotwali Chowk, Bettiah”, on 20th June, 2004. Name Board of Dr. Niraj Kumar showing that he is working as a doctor, has been photographed and annexed as annexure-2. Annexure-3 is prescription of a patient Ajay Kumar dated 15-11-2011. At the top, the prescription bears the name and description of Dr. Niraj Kumar as well as of another doctor, Shital Nurula. It is also her case that father of her husband had sufficient property and only to defeat her claim Niraj Kumar claimed fake partition with his father while he had been doing professional work with him as would appear from invitation card noticed above. 7. Now father of Niraj Kumar is no more and as per law he has inherited the property of his father but details of the same are not available with Sweta Kumari. 8. Paragraph-6 of the judgment under appeal discloses the grounds taken by the husband in his rejoinder to the petition dated 5-10-2007. In that rejoinder he stated that his entire family entered into separation and on that account he has no money and presently he is a jobless person . On that plea he expressed helplessness in paying rupees twenty seven lakhs as claimed by the wife. 9. The facts disclose that a love marriage between the parties ended in failure soon-after the husband returned from Russia after obtaining decree in medicine. His Name Board describes him as M.D. Physician and Surgeon, Specialist in diseases of abdomen, chest and heart as well as an Endoscopist and Ultrasoundlogist. He was a Resident doctor in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and later, a doctor at Primary Health Centre, Nautan, Bettiah. 10. According to learned counsel for the husband, he was working as a doctor in the Primary Health Centre only on contract basis on a monthly remuneration of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2008 and is now getting remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month. 11. Since the parties have no children, the monthly income of the husband as a doctor, in our view, should be apportioned so that 1/3rd of the value thereof is made available to the wife and 2/3rd remains with him. 11. Since the parties have no children, the monthly income of the husband as a doctor, in our view, should be apportioned so that 1/3rd of the value thereof is made available to the wife and 2/3rd remains with him. Considering that he has income from private practice including Endoscopic Centre in Bettia and at least Rs.30,000/- per month by working under contract for the State Government, the monthly income in our view, cannot be less than Rs.50,000/- per month. However, giving accommodation for payment of income tax, the income at hand is taken as Rs.45,000/- per month. Out of that the wife is entitled for getting Rs.15,000/- per month. On account of getting the benefit of Rs.5,00000/- (rupees five lakhs) as permanent alimony as per order of the learned court below she is already assured of a monthly income of about Rs.5,000/-. To make for the balance of Rs.10,000/- per month in our view she should be paid at least rupees five lakhs so that she may have monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and also the corpus of rupees ten lakhs to meet any unforeseen situation. 12. In view of aforesaid discussions, we hold that appellant of M.A. 49 of 2010, Sweta Kumari is entitled for permanent alimony of Rs.10,00000/-, out of which rupees five lakhs has already been paid to her. The remaining amount should be paid to her at an early date preferably within 12 months. However, till that amount is made available to her by Dr. Niraj Kumar, she will be entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- per month in lieu of balance permanent alimony of Rs.5,00000/-. In case the balance amount of rupees five lakhs is not paid to her within 12 months from today, she will be entitled to seek execution as per law. 13. The appeal preferred by Sweta Kumari ( M.A. 49 of 2010) is allowed in part as indicated above. While we have enhanced the amount of permanent alimony, the decree for divorce is maintained. So far as the other appeal bearing M.A. No. 625 of 2010 is concerned, since it raises only a challenge to the quantum of permanent alimony, it is dismissed in view of order passed above. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.