JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ) This is a first appeal filed by the wife/appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Sivsagar, Assam in Title Suit No.(Matrimonial) 50/2006. By impugned judgment/order, the learned trial Judge decreed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short hereinafter called ‘The Act’) against the appellant (wife) and granted decree of divorce in his favour dissolving his marriage with the wife (appellant). The trial court while granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband (respondent herein) awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lakh by way of permanent alimony to the wife (appellant herein) payable by the respondent (husband) to her. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether any case on facts or/and in law is made out by the appellant (wife) for setting aside the impugned decree of divorce and secondly, whether any case is made out for enhancement of permanent alimony of Rs. 2 lakh awarded by the trial court to the wife in case if it is held that decree of divorce is legal and proper? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The marriage between the parties to the appeal was solemnized on 27.12.79. Out of this wedlock, three children were born – two sons and one daughter. After 27 years of their marriage, unfortunately, disputes/differences started between the parties and they started living separately. This then led to filing of the divorce petition by the husband (respondent herein), who is working as an employee of ONGC, against the appellant (wife) under Section 13 of the Act before the trial court. The respondent in his divorce petition essentially alleged mental and physical cruelty suffered by him from his wife in his life, which, according to him, compelled him to file the divorce petition out of which this appeal arises. He alleged that firstly, there have been no marital relations/cohabitation between them for quite a long time and he is thus, deprived of leading a normal and happy married life with his wife and that too without any reasonable cause and no fault of him. He alleged that firstly, there have been no marital relations/cohabitation between them for quite a long time and he is thus, deprived of leading a normal and happy married life with his wife and that too without any reasonable cause and no fault of him. He also alleged that his wife made several personal uncalled for allegations against him which tarnished his personal image and character in society – such as, that he had developed some kind of illicit relations with some lady etc. He also alleged that marriage between the parties is completely broken and has become irretrievable for all practicable purposes because they have been living separately for quite a long time and that there is absolutely no possibility of their re-union in near future. It is essentially on these factual averments, the husband filed the divorce petition against the wife under Section 13 ibid and prayed for a decree of dissolution of their marriage. The wife filed written statement and denied the material averments. She made counter allegations against the husband alleging against him that he was indulging in having illicit relations with one lady. She also alleged that husband had been constantly quarrelling with her and at times, also used to assault her. In substance, therefore, it was a case, where the both parties made accusations against each other. The trial court framed issues. The husband adduced evidence in support of his allegations, but for the reasons best known to the wife, she did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The trial court then, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the husband, decreed the petition filed by the husband. It was held that a case of cruelty as alleged by the husband against the wife is made out on the basis of evidence adduced by the husband and hence, he is entitled to claim a decree of divorce of dissolution of their marriage. The trial court also awarded a total sum of Rs. 2 lakh to the wife towards her permanent alimony to be paid by the husband to her. In this way, the trial court decreed the petition by passing the impugned decree, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the wife. The trial court also awarded a total sum of Rs. 2 lakh to the wife towards her permanent alimony to be paid by the husband to her. In this way, the trial court decreed the petition by passing the impugned decree, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the wife. Though learned counsel for the appellant (wife) tried to argue the issue on merits for some time assailing the finding of granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty but, on hearing his submission, we find no merit in the same. Indeed, he had to concede that in the absence of any evidence not being adduced by the wife in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the husband, the trial court was justified in accepting the unrebutted evidence of the husband on the material issues which did constitute a case of cruelty pleaded by the husband against the wife. We have also on our part, as a first appellate court perused the pleadings and evidence adduced by the husband with a view to find out as to whether husband was able to discharge his initial burden of proving the case of cruelty against his wife and whether it is sufficient to sustain the decree of divorce on the plea of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 ibid. ? Having perused the same and keeping in view the requirements of Section 13 ibid, we are of the view that no fault can be noticed in the impugned reasoning of the trial court in so far as it relates to grant of decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties. In our opinion, the petition did contain requisite pleadings and the evidence in support thereof for passing a decree for divorce. The husband was also able to discharge the initial burden that lay on him to prove the factum of cruelty against his wife and the instances pleaded by him in the petition did constitute a case of cruelty which were proved on evidence. It was more so because despite affording an opportunity to wife, she did not enter into the witness box and did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. It was more so because despite affording an opportunity to wife, she did not enter into the witness box and did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. Apart from what is stated above, In the first place, it is now proved with sufficient evidence that there have been no cohabitation between the parties for a long time – prior to filing of the petition before the trial court and then further during pendency of the petition and lastly, during pendency of this appeal as well. Secondly, both parties have been living separately since last more than ten years with no hope of their re-union despite our persistent insistence to re-unite. Thirdly, the evidence adduced by the husband also justified that allegations of illicit relations were made by the wife against him, but she could not substantiate the allegations despite giving her the opportunity and lastly, these facts and evidence were sufficient in the facts of this case to grant a decree for divorce because apart from the fact that a case of cruelty is held made out on facts in husband’s favour and against the wife, the marriage has also broken irretrievably due to spouses living separately for more than 10 years. It is for all these reasons, we concur with the findings of the trial court and uphold the decree of divorce of dissolution of marriage. This takes us to the next question as to whether any case is made out by the appellant-wife for enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to her by the trial court i.e. Rs. 2 lakh. ? It is not in dispute that the wife is now sufficiently aged and is a housewife with no independent income of her own from any known sources. In other words, the wife is not earning either by doing any service or business or any kind of occupation. She is, perhaps, living with her daughters or married son. It is also not in dispute that the husband is working with ONGC and is earning quite a good amount of money within the range of approximately between Rs.30,000/- to somewhere Rs. 40,000/-, if not more. The husband has not filed any document to show financial condition of wife except to say orally that she is living in the house belonging to him whereas he is living in official quarter allotted to him by his employer. 40,000/-, if not more. The husband has not filed any document to show financial condition of wife except to say orally that she is living in the house belonging to him whereas he is living in official quarter allotted to him by his employer. In our opinion, it is of no significance. It is also pertinent to note that though this appeal is pending since last more than 3 years, yet, during pendency of this appeal, the wife (appellant) for the reasons best known to her neither made any application under Section 24 of the Act claiming pendent lite monthly maintenance for her livelihood nor asked for payment of expenses for prosecuting this appeal from the husband. Taking these facts into consideration and further taking into consideration the husband’s monthly income, wife’s non-earning capacity from inception till date, her age, qualification, and the fact that husband did not pay any maintenance money and expenses to his wife to prosecute the appeal for last three years, we are of the considered view that permanent alimony should be enhanced in lump sum to Rs. 3 lakh in place of Rs. 2 lakh. In other words, we are of the considered opinion that a case for enhancement in award of permanent alimony is made out by one (1) lakh and hence, the appellant is held entitled to claim permanent alimony from the respondent ( husband ) amounting to Rs. 3 lakh in place of Rs. 2 lakh. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned decree is modified in appellant’s (wife’s) favour to the extent that she (appellant) is held entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 3 lakh from the respondent (husband) towards her permanent alimony. So far as the decree for grant of divorce to the respondent (husband) is concerned, the same is upheld. Let the amount of Rs. 3 lakh be deposited by the respondent within 3 months. If the respondent has already deposited any money pursuant to the impugned decree during pendency of this appeal then, he will only deposit balance amount within 3 months. Failure to deposit the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 % on the said unpaid amount from the date of this order/judgment till its realization from the respondent (husband). If the respondent has already deposited any money pursuant to the impugned decree during pendency of this appeal then, he will only deposit balance amount within 3 months. Failure to deposit the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 % on the said unpaid amount from the date of this order/judgment till its realization from the respondent (husband). In addition, the respondent shall also pay cost of this appeal to the appellant, which is quantified at Rs. 5000/-. Let this amount of Rs. 5000/- be deposited by the respondent along with the amount of permanent alimony in the court below.