JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the husband-Arun Kumar Paul- challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2015 passed by the District Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Suit (Divorce) No. 5/2013, awarding permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent wife-Sikha Paul by dissolving the marriage between the parties. 2. The brief facts are these. According to Appellant, he married the respondent on 5.6.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs and they resided together as husband and wife till 1.1.2009 on which date, respondent deserted him and started living in her parental home. Appellant also pleaded that he had no source of income and was dependent on his younger brother who used to make the necessary expenses for his living. Prior to that, in the year 2003, respondent asked appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as permanent alimony and consequently, the said amount was paid by him. An affidavit/declaration –Exhibit-1 to that extent was executed by respondent on 10.7.2003 acknowledging the receipt of the said sum. Appellant subsequently filed the Title Suit (Divorce) No. 5/2013 for dissolution of the marriage on 26.2.2013 pleading to the effect that respondent received the aforesaid sum as permanent alimony which was admitted by her in the Court in maintenance case- M.R. Case No. 203/2010 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence prayed for a decree of divorce due to desertion. 3. Respondent, however, in her written statement, while admitting her signature in Exhibit-1, pleaded that appellant deceitfully obtained her signatures in some blank papers, which were subsequently converted into a declaration and she stoutly denied receiving the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as permanent alimony in the year 2003. Her contention was that appellant used to demand dowry from her and on her failure to satisfy his demands, he used to torture her both physically and mentally and ultimately on 1.1.2009, she was beaten mercilessly and was driven out from her matrimonial home and as such, she was forced to leave the company of the appellant. 4. Her contention was that appellant used to demand dowry from her and on her failure to satisfy his demands, he used to torture her both physically and mentally and ultimately on 1.1.2009, she was beaten mercilessly and was driven out from her matrimonial home and as such, she was forced to leave the company of the appellant. 4. The District Judge by the impugned judgment and order disbelieved the execution of the declaration-Exhibit-1 and receipt of the aforesaid permanent alimony and passed the decree of divorce by awarding a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as permanent alimony. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this instant appeal. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Respondent has admitted her signatures Exhibits-A(1), (2), (3) and (4) on the declaration Exhibit-1 and has also proved the signature Exhibit-A(5) of her brother-Radhu Paul Choudhury. Radhu Paul Choudhury stood as a witness to the said declaration. He was not summoned as witness by the respondent to thwart the claim of appellant. Burden was on her to prove that the signatures of both respondent and her brother-Radhu Paul Choudhury were taken deceitfully on blank papers and the same were subsequently converted into affidavit. She could have easily done so by calling her own brother as witness and on the contrary, she opted to conceal this witness. DW3-Kalyan Kar-an advocate by profession, who identified respondent and her signatures, also deposed that respondent received the aforesaid sum as permanent alimony. Ashit Paul (PW-2) another witness also proved the said transaction. All the witnesses stood firm in the witness box and did not shake during their cross-examination as such drawing confidence of the court. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the appellant and the contents of Exhibit-1. Besides, the respondent had admitted her signatures in Exhibit-1 in the maintenance case too, thereby acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- earlier. As such, the respondent is not entitled for further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as directed by the District Judge and now the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only is to be paid to her by the appellant. Appellant shall pay the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to her within 60 (sixty) days from today. 6. 1,50,000/- earlier. As such, the respondent is not entitled for further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as directed by the District Judge and now the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only is to be paid to her by the appellant. Appellant shall pay the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to her within 60 (sixty) days from today. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the District Judge is modified to the above extent. Appeal is partly allowed.