JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. N. C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the husband assailing the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No.65/2018 registered on the basis of an application filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for permanent alimony. It would be pertinent to note herein that by the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in F.C.(Civil) No.594/2016, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Upon dissolution of their marriage, the only question that remained unresolved was pertaining to the quantum of permanent alimony payable to the wife. By the impugned order dated 10.07.2018, the learned court below, after going through the materials available on record, had held that the appellant (husband) would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as permanent alimony to the respondent (wife). Aggrieved by such direction issued by the learned court below, the present appeal has been filed. 3. We find that while admitting the appeal, this Court had passed an interim order dated 04.12.2019 directing the appellant to pay 50% of the amount of permanent alimony to his wife i.e. a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). We are informed that the said amount has already been paid by the appellant to the respondent. 4. By referring to the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 Mr. Das submits that the impugned order is based only on the one sided projection made by the respondent (wife) in as much as the learned court below has not considered the case of the appellant, more particularly the expenditure incurred by him on regular basis out of his earnings. On such count, submits Mr. Das, the amount of Rs.30 Lakhs granted as permanent alimony is exorbitant and deserves to be reduced. On such count, submits Mr. Das, the amount of Rs.30 Lakhs granted as permanent alimony is exorbitant and deserves to be reduced. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, made it clear that he is assailing the impugned order on the basis of findings recorded therein based on materials available before the Court at the relevant point of time and does not in any manner intend to bring any subsequent development pertaining to the appellant’s employment on record so as to assail the order. 5. Refuting such arguments, Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant did not file any objection nor did he bring any facts to the notice of the learned court so as to justify his argument. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent is a young lady aged about 39 years and has her entire life to be lived with the assistance of permanent alimony. She also submits that the appellant is working as Systems Manager in WIPRO and therefore, has the requisite means to pay the balance amount of permanent alimony to the respondent, without any further delay. On such ground, Ms. Choudhury submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that when the decree of divorce was passed by the learned Family Court dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant was serving as MS in Information Security at Paladian, Qatar and earning salary in Qatari Rial. His monthly salary at that time converted in India currency, was in excess of Rs.2,33,744/-. Taking note of such facts and figures, the learned Family Court had observed as follows :- “In this case the opposite party is serving as MS in Information Security at Paladian, Qatar. From the above it reveals that the monthly salary of the opposite party is Rs.2,33,744/-as per Indian Currency in the year 2016. However, as per the salary slip of the opposite party of December 2015, the net pay received by the opposite party is 10,252/-Qatari Rial which is equivalent to approximately Rs.1,87,611/-. So the salary of the opposite party is Rs.1,87,611/-as per Indian Currency (1QAR=Rs.18.3/-) in December, 20156. However, as per the salary slip of the opposite party of December 2015, the net pay received by the opposite party is 10,252/-Qatari Rial which is equivalent to approximately Rs.1,87,611/-. So the salary of the opposite party is Rs.1,87,611/-as per Indian Currency (1QAR=Rs.18.3/-) in December, 20156. By this time his salary must have increased. On the other hand the petitioner has no source of income. In this case the opposite party is serving as MS in Information Security at Paladian, Qatar whereas the petitioner has no source of income.” On the basis of the aforesaid observation, direction to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as permanent alimony was issued. 8. Mr. Das submits that in the written statement filed on behalf of his client in F.C. (Civil) No.594/2016, the appellant had given a detailed break-up of both his earnings and expenditure by indicating that his total monthly expenditure was to the tune of 12,274 QAR. However, the said aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned court below while passing the impugned order. 9. On a closer scrutiny of the materials on record, we find that the appellant did not file any written objection in Misc.(J) Case No.65/2018. The written statement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was actually filed in the divorce proceeding which was disposed of before passing the order dated 21.05.2018. Therefore, although Mr. Das has submitted that his client had relied upon the written statement filed in the divorce case, we are unable to accept such submission since after the disposal of the divorce case, it would not be permissible for the court to rely upon the pleadings available on record of that case so as to decide the issues arising in subsequent proceeding. If that be so, it is evident that there was no material brought on record by the appellant before the learned court below pertaining to his monthly expenditure. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned court below. 10. Having held as above, we have also noticed that around that time, the appellant had lost his job in Qatar and subsequently shifted to India. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned court below. 10. Having held as above, we have also noticed that around that time, the appellant had lost his job in Qatar and subsequently shifted to India. Although he is presently employed but his salary calculated in INR is less than what he was drawing at the time when the decree of divorce was passed. The said fact is borne out from the affidavit filed by the parties in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & another passed in Crl. Appeal No.730/2020 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9503/2018. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has an old ailing mother living with him and he has to take care of her medical treatment, which at times, entails substantial expenditure. Such assertion of the appellant has not been disputed by the respondent. 11. On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and for ends of justice, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) as permanent alimony to be paid to the respondent would be just and sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, modify the impugned order dated 10.07.2018 and direct the appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) within a period of six months from the date of this order, if need be, in two equated instalments. We also make it clear that if the amount is not paid within the timeframe, as indicated herein above, the unpaid amount would carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum with effect from expiry of six months from today, till such time, the entire amount is paid by the appellant to the respondent. We also make it clear that the appellant would deposit the amount in the Bank Account of the respondent, the particulars of which would be furnished by Ms. N. Choudhury to Mr. Das within a week from today. If for any reason the appellant fails to comply with this order, it would be open for the respondent to bring it to the notice of this Court by filing appropriate application. 12. In view of the order passed today in the present proceeding Ms. N. Choudhury to Mr. Das within a week from today. If for any reason the appellant fails to comply with this order, it would be open for the respondent to bring it to the notice of this Court by filing appropriate application. 12. In view of the order passed today in the present proceeding Ms. N. Choudhury submits that she would ensure that her client withdraws the Maintenance Case bearing No.F.C.(Crl.) Case No.358/2016 instituted against the appellant in the Family Court No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, within two weeks from today. With the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of.