JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J 1. Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. M.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08/04/2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 54/2012 arising out of FC(Civil) case No. 186/2012, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-as permanent alimony, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent herein. 3. It appears from the materials available on record that the marriage between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court on 28/02/2018 in connection with FC(Civil) Case No. 186/2012. The decree of divorce has not been assailed by the respondent. However, it appears that the respondent had filed an application registered and numbered as Misc. (J) case No. 54/2012 with a prayer to pass an order for granting permanent alimony for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to be paid by the appellant. By the impugned order dated 08/04/2019, the aforesaid application had been disposed of the learned Court below by granting a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as permanent alimony. 4. In support of her prayer, the respondent/petitioner had contended before the trial Court that the appellant/opposite party was employed in a private firm called Genius Consultant Ltd. and is receiving a salary of Rs. 15,146/-per month, as on the month of September, 2014. That apart, he had income from other sources including business, which takes his gross monthly income to Rs. 50,000/-. According to the respondent/petitioner, the appellant is also the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 6 lessa and he had constructed an Assam Type House thereupon, which had been let out on rent for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-per month. It was also contended that the appellant owns a separate plot of land measuring 1 katha and is also a co-sharer of other ancestral land measuring 30 bighas. On the other hand, the respondent/petitioner had claimed that she was working as a contractual employee in a Grade-IV post in the K.K. Handique Open University. She has also stated that it was a temporary post with the possibility of her services being terminated at any time. Therefore, she did not have sufficient means to support herself. 5. On the other hand, the respondent/petitioner had claimed that she was working as a contractual employee in a Grade-IV post in the K.K. Handique Open University. She has also stated that it was a temporary post with the possibility of her services being terminated at any time. Therefore, she did not have sufficient means to support herself. 5. The appellant (husband) on the other hand, had adduced evidence to the effect that he was initially working in a Tea Company as a Godown In-charge and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-. With effect from the month of June/2010, he has been serving as a Manager in the Tata Tea Wear House drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 13,000/-. The appellant had admitted that prior to his marriage, he had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 katha at Beltola in Guwahati and he had also constructed an Assam Type House over the said plot of land in the year 2006 by availing personal loan to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/-from the family members. 6. The appellant had also projected that in terms of an order passed by the Court in a proceeding registered under the Domestic Violence Act, instituted by the respondent /petitioner, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/-per month i.e. Rs. 4,000/-for the respondent /petitioner and a sum of Rs. 3,000/-for their minor son and the said order was also upheld by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 193/2016. Since he had been made to pay sum of Rs. 7,000/-to the respondent in connection with the order passed in the proceeding registered under the Domestic Violence Act, he was not liable to pay any further amount. 7. Taking note of the materials available on record, the learned Family Court had made the following observation in the order dated 08/04/2019 while granting permanent alimony of Rs. 4 lakhs in favour of the respondent : “The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner categorically brought the fact in her evidence that the opposite party is working in Genius Consultant ltd. having monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2014 and also has considerable income from house rent and from all sources his monthly salary income is about Rs. 50,000/-. having monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2014 and also has considerable income from house rent and from all sources his monthly salary income is about Rs. 50,000/-. It appears that petitioner in support of the aforesaid fact proved the relevant salary slip of the opposite party for the month of September 2014 as Exhibit-5 and the perusal of the same appears to duly substantiate the contention of the petitioner and it appears that though the opposite party disputed the aforesaid pay slip on the ground of the same to be not certified by any concerned official but has failed to bring any cogent material to dislodge its veracity. The perusal of evidence on record nowhere reveals any cogent material in denial of the fact regarding the opposite party to be an employee of the aforesaid company or regarding his aforesaid salary. The evidence on record reveals that it is an admitted fact that the opposite party is having a land at Beltola and also is having a house over the same being constructed by him bearing considerable amount. It further appears that the opposite party is also bearing considerable amount for education of his minor son and all the aforesaid admitted facts clearly suggest the opposite party of having considerable income. It appears that though the petitioner admitted to be working as Grade-IV employee in the aforesaid Open University, since 03/04/2017 but she categorically deposed that she is working there on contractual basis and she does not know when her job will be terminated and the said fact nowhere appears to be denied or disputed by the opposite party. Hence, in view of the entire materials on record, as being discussed above, and having regard to the income of the opposite party and his relevant expenditures as being brought by him on record as well as the other relevant factors, the petitioner is granted permanent alimony of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs). The opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within three months from the date of this order, with a liberty to pay the same in three installments. With the foregoing observations, the instant petition stands allowed.” 8. The basic challenge to the impugned order dated 08/04/2019 is on the ground that the appellant did not have sufficient means to pay the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent. With the foregoing observations, the instant petition stands allowed.” 8. The basic challenge to the impugned order dated 08/04/2019 is on the ground that the appellant did not have sufficient means to pay the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent. On the other hand, according to Mr. Jha, the respondent has sufficient means to support herself. Therefore, there was no justification for the learned Court below in directing payment of such heavy amount as permanent alimony in favour of the respondent. 9. Controverting the above, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent is facing acute financial difficulties and her contractual employment does not give her sufficient means to support herself. Mr. Borah has also argued that their minor son is living with the father i.e. the appellant and he is being sent to a convent school, thereby, indicating that the appellant not only has sufficient income but is also in a position to pay the permanent alimony. Under the circumstances, Mr. Borah submits that there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Law is firmly settled that in matters pertaining to grant of permanent alimony, the trial Court would be obliged to take note of the evidence brought on record indicating the assets and liabilities vis-à-vis the means of livelihood of both the parties. In the present case, we find that the respondent/petitioner had adduced evidence in support of her claim and the appellant/opposite party has not entirely denied the claim of the respondent / wife but has given his own version indicating that he was not resourceful enough to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. After taking note of the evidence available on record and on due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court had passed the impugned order dated 08/04/2019. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the justification furnished in the impugned order dated 08/04/2019, we are of the view that the order of permanent alimony passed by the learned Family Court is quite reasonable and based on cogent materials available on record. As such, the said order, in our considered opinion, does not call for any interference from this Court. 12. As such, the said order, in our considered opinion, does not call for any interference from this Court. 12. While admitting the appeal, this Court had passed order dated 08/01/2021 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as interim payment. Accordingly, the appellant has not only deposited the sum of Rs. 1 lakhs but the amount has also been withdrawn by the respondent. Therefore, at this stage, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in terms of the order dated 08/04/2019 remains to be unpaid by the appellant. 13. At this stage, Mr. Jha has argued that despite the order dated 08/04/2019, his client has been compelled to pay maintenance to the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act. According to Mr. Jha, once the decree of divorce has attained finality and the marriage between the parties stood dissolved, the wife cannot claim further maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Since the aforesaid issue is not before us in the present proceeding, we refrain from going into the said aspect of the matter in the present proceeding and grant liberty to the parties to file appropriate proceeding raising the above plea, if so advised. 14. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. The appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the respondent within a period of four months from today. Send back the LCR.