JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. Pulak Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It arises from the judgment dated 17.01.2020 delivered in Title Suit (Divorce) 50 of 2018 by the Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti Judicial District dissolving the marriage between the appellant and his wife. 3. Brief fact of the case is as under: Marriage between the respondent husband and appellant wife was solemnized in the year 2009 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In their wedlock, a daughter namely, Rima Datta was born. The respondent is a contractual teacher serving under the Department of Education. The appellant stated in her petition that after five months of peaceful conjugal life, her respondent husband and his parents started making illegal demand of dowry to which she denied and as a result she was subjected to torture by her respondent husband and his parents. This apart, she was often blamed for her dark complexion and ugliness. The appellant wife was also subjected to torture by her respondent husband at the administration of his parents and relatives for giving birth to a female child. The appellant wife for the welfare of her and her daughter kept silent. One day in March, 2014, husband of the appellant after consuming alcohol tortured her and for this reason she took shelter in her parental house to save her life and her minor child. After 4/5 days, the appellant wife returned to her matrimonial home with her brother and sister-in-law. The appellant thereafter started living in a rented house at Kumarghat believing her husband who promised to maintain her and their child and visit therein once or thrice a week. But, the respondent husband neither bear the expenses for maintenance nor he visited the rented house where his appellant wife and their child were residing. Failing to bear the day to day expenses, the appellant wife was compelled to live in her matrimonial home. Lastly, on 24.06.2018, husband of the appellant wife brutally tortured her and ousted her and their child. In order to save the lives of her and her daughter, the appellant took shelter in the house of her brothers. 4. Failing to bear the day to day expenses, the appellant wife was compelled to live in her matrimonial home. Lastly, on 24.06.2018, husband of the appellant wife brutally tortured her and ousted her and their child. In order to save the lives of her and her daughter, the appellant took shelter in the house of her brothers. 4. The appellant filed an FIR in Manu Police station which was registered as Manu P.S. case No.34 of 2018 to which the police subsequently filed charge sheet against the respondent husband. 5. The respondent husband then filed an application before the Family Court, Unakoti Judicial District with a prayer for granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. 6. The trial court had taken initiative for reconciliation of their dispute. When the efforts failed, the learned Family Judge took up the case for trial and framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and nature. (ii) Whether the husband-petitioner Sri Sukanta Datta was subjected to cruelty by the wife-respondent Smt. Rupali Paul? (iii) Whether in the Month of June, 2016 the respondent had deserted the petitioner? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion? (v) Any other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to? 7. In the course of trial, the husband examined himself as PW-1 and two other witnesses namely, Smt, Krishna Datta and Sri Balaram Deb as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. The wife on the other hand examined herself as DW-1 and another witness namely, Sri Prasenjit Paul as DW-2. 8. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that the respondent-wife (appellant herein) has assaulted the petitioner (respondent herein) and his mother and moreover subsequent conduct of the parties after filing of the case was also not healthy. In this view of the matter, the trial court granted divorce in favour of the petitioner husband observing as under: 'In the result, the marriage between the petitioner Sri Sukanta Datta and respondent Smt. Rupali Paul is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce with effect from today the 17th January, 2020. The petitioner did not claim for alimony or maintenance and hence, no order is made in that regard. Without prejudice to her rights to claim the same later on. The case is disposed of on contest.' 9. The petitioner did not claim for alimony or maintenance and hence, no order is made in that regard. Without prejudice to her rights to claim the same later on. The case is disposed of on contest.' 9. Being aggrieved, appellant-wife has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020. Hence, this appeal. 10. Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that seven months after the decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court, the respondent-husband has married another lady. Learned counsel contends that the respondent-husband is paying maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month to his wife for maintaining herself and her child which is not sufficient for maintenance of the appellant-wife and better upbringing of her child. In this regard, learned counsel has urged this Court for maintenance allowance @ Rs.20,000/- for the appellant wife and her child. 11. From the other side, Mr. D. Biswas, learned counsel contended that the respondent-husband is a contractual teacher who earns around Rs.28,000/- per month and he has his family consisting of his present wife and ailing parents. Being the sole earning member of the family, it would be difficult for him to pay the amount of maintenance allowance as claimed by the appellant-wife. 12. We have perused the entire record and considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. 13. Pleadings are completed. Both the parties are present at the time of hearing. 14. Presently, the respondent-husband is paying Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance-allowance to the appellant-wife and by way of monthly maintenance- allowance she demanded Rs.20,000/- for permanent settlement. The respondent-husband expressed his inability to pay the said amount as demanded by the appellant-wife as he has his family consisting of his present wife and ailing parents and he further contended that he is drawing around Rs.28,000/- per month towards his salary as a contractual teacher. The appellant contended that the respondent-husband apart from drawing salary as a teacher, he is having additional source of income from private tuition and therefore, she prayed to grant reasonable compensation from her husband. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the maintenance-allowance be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife Rupali Paul (Datta) and Rs.5,000/- to daughter Rima Datta. 16. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the maintenance-allowance be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife Rupali Paul (Datta) and Rs.5,000/- to daughter Rima Datta. 16. Thus, the maintenance-allowance be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs.5,000/- towards daughter. The respondent-husband shall pay the said amount regularly on monthly basis. Liberty is given to the appellant wife and her daughter for making appropriate application before the concerned Court seeking enhancement in view of the changed circumstances, if any, in future. 17. In view of the above directions, the matter stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.