JUDGMENT : Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - MFA No.3143/2016 and MFA Crob. No.90/2016 arise from the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2016 in M.C. No.28/2015 on the file of Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. 2. RPFC No.49/2015 arises from the judgment in dated 02.12.2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2/2014 on the file of Family Court, Mangalore. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the proceedings are referred to as husband and wife. 4. The wife filed M.C.No.28/2015 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a), (i-b) & 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The husband in the said petition filed a counterclaim under Section 9 of the Act and sought for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. In terms of the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court allowed the petition under Section 13(1) (i-a), (i-b) of the Act, and rejected the claim under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act. The counterclaim filed by the husband is also rejected. The Family Court awarded Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife. 6. The husband is in appeal in MFA No.3143/2016 challenging the judgment and decree granting divorce and permanent alimony of Rs.15 lakhs. 7. The cross objection is filed by the wife challenging the part of the judgment refusing the claim of Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent alimony, on the premise that the award of Rs.15 lakhs is on the lower side and she seeks additional alimony of Rs.15 lakhs. 8. The RPFC No.49/2015 referred above, is filed by the husband challenging the judgment passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2/2014 on the file of Family Court, Mangalore. In terms of the order dated 02.12.2014 in a petition filed by the wife and her two daughters, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance and Rs.2,500/- per month to her two daughters. 9. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case can be summarized as under: The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 09.09.2002. From the marriage, two daughters were born. The elder daughter was born on 08.06.2004 and the younger daughter was born on 28.02.2008. For few days after the marriage, the parties stayed in Mangaluru and later they shifted to Bangaluru. The husband started a hotel business in Bengaluru. Wife claims that she assisted her husband in running the hotel. From the marriage, two daughters were born. The elder daughter was born on 08.06.2004 and the younger daughter was born on 28.02.2008. For few days after the marriage, the parties stayed in Mangaluru and later they shifted to Bangaluru. The husband started a hotel business in Bengaluru. Wife claims that she assisted her husband in running the hotel. Children were born when the husband and wife were in Bengaluru. The wife contends that the husband for no reason suspected her chastity, started ill-treating her, used to insult and abuse her. Wife alleges that she and her two children were forced out from his home in Bengaluru. Since then she is residing with her aged parents. It is further alleged that in the month of September 2012, the husband visited her parent's house and she was forced to sign a petition which she later realized that it is a joint petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage. It is stated that her signatures were under the threat of kidnapping the children. The said petition was later dismissed for want of her consent. 10. It is further alleged that, as the husband refused to maintain the wife and children, she filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and on behalf of the children in Criminal Misc. No.2/2014. The trial Court vide order dated 02.12.2014 directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,500/- per month each to the minor daughters and it is stated that the order is not complied with. It is her contention that her husband treated her with cruelty. He deserted her and her children and refused to maintain them. Hence she filed the petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds aforesaid. 11. The husband contested the petition and denied all allegations averred against him. It is his contention that the wife was not interested in the marriage and accordingly at her instance, he had agreed to file a petition seeking dissolution of marriage in M.C. No.197/2012 on mutual terms. However, the wife refused to proceed further in the mutual petition and withdrew her consent resulting in dismissal of the petition. The husband has alleged that the wife was having a strange association with one Mr.Yeshwant and without suspecting her character, politely made enquiries about him with his wife. She gave an evasive reply and started neglecting him thereafter. 12. However, the wife refused to proceed further in the mutual petition and withdrew her consent resulting in dismissal of the petition. The husband has alleged that the wife was having a strange association with one Mr.Yeshwant and without suspecting her character, politely made enquiries about him with his wife. She gave an evasive reply and started neglecting him thereafter. 12. He alleges that her attitude towards him completely changed and the wife has no respect for him. As days progressed, the wife completely withdrew from his society. It is his case that the wife left the marital home without any reasonable cause. However, he is willing to stay with her and his children. He has filed a counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal rights and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 13. The wife examined herself as PW-1, her mother and seven documents were marked at Ex.P1 to P7 and the respondent examined himself as RW-1 and four documents were marked at Ex.R1 to R4. As already noticed, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage is allowed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court recorded evidence. The counterclaim seeking restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed. The Family Court has also awarded Rs.15 lakhs to the wife as permanent alimony. Hence, the husband is in appeal and the wife has filed a cross objection seeking enhancement of alimony to Rs.30 lakhs. 14. Learned counsel for the husband would submit that the husband would not press his appeal challenging the decree for dissolution of marriage and the decree refusing the restitution of conjugal rights. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record. Thus, the appeal is confined only to the question of alimony of Rs.15 lakhs awarded by the Family Court. 15. In view of the above-said submissions, the point for consideration in the appeal and cross-objection is whether the wife is entitled to alimony or not. If entitled what is the alimony payable? Likewise, the point for consideration in the RPFC referred to above is whether the wife and children are entitled to maintenance or not. If entitled what is the maintenance payable? 16. The husband has also filed RPFC No.49/2015 challenging the order dated 02.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. No.02/2014 referred to above. 17. If entitled what is the alimony payable? Likewise, the point for consideration in the RPFC referred to above is whether the wife and children are entitled to maintenance or not. If entitled what is the maintenance payable? 16. The husband has also filed RPFC No.49/2015 challenging the order dated 02.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. No.02/2014 referred to above. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the husband as well as the learned counsel for the wife in all three matters and perused the records. 18. Learned counsel for the husband would contend that the award of Rs.15 lakhs towards permanent alimony is on the higher side. It is his case that the husband is not having any assured source of income, the hotel which he was running earlier is closed and he has only 1 acre 30 guntas of agricultural land in his village and an undivided share in 6 acres of land which is the ancestral property. He would further submit that he must take care of his aged mother and the order of award of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony is without justifiable reasons. It is also his case that the wife is earning and the same is established from the photograph which reveals that she is running a shop. He also urged that the order for maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month in favour of his wife and Rs.2500/- per month each in favour of children is on the higher side. 19. The learned counsel appearing the for the wife would submit that the husband owns self-acquired agricultural land as well as share in the ancestral property and he has assured income from both the lands and is earning sound income from his ice cream parlour business. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the wife that the husband has failed to maintain his wife as well as the minor children and the husband is not even paying the meager amount of monthly maintenance ordered by the Court in Criminal Misc. No.02/2014 proceedings referred to above. 20. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in the case of Rajanesh v. Neha [See: (2021)2 SCC 324 ] this Court has directed the parties to file an affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities. Pursuant to the order both the parties have filed the statement of Assets and Liabilities. No.02/2014 proceedings referred to above. 20. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in the case of Rajanesh v. Neha [See: (2021)2 SCC 324 ] this Court has directed the parties to file an affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities. Pursuant to the order both the parties have filed the statement of Assets and Liabilities. In the affidavit dated 13.04.2023, the husband has stated that he owns 1 acre 30 guntas and undivided share in 6 acres of agricultural land. The affidavit also discloses that he has availed agricultural loan of Rs.3 lakhs. However, he has not disclosed the income. In the affidavit against the words 'monthly income' he has mentioned as 'not applicable'. It was incumbent upon the husband to disclose the income. However, he has not done so despite the Court order. This being the position, this Court has to necessarily draw an adverse inference against the husband. It is also to be noticed that the husband has not disclosed the actual extent of land in the ancestral agricultural land. He has not even disclosed the extent of his share in the ancestral land. 21. The wife has also filed an affidavit dated 15.04.2023 disclosing the assets and liabilities. The affidavit would reveal that there are no properties standing in her name. She is living with her mother who is aged 65 years and with her daughters aged 18 years and 14 years respectively. 22. Though the husband contends that wife owns the shop by producing the photographs, no documents are produced regarding the ownership. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that the shop belongs to her mother and that the wife does not own the said shop. In the absence of materials to show that the wife owns the shop, said property cannot be treated as the property of the wife and income derived from the said shop as the income of the wife. 23. This Court has also perused the materials placed before the Family Court as well as JMFC Mangaluru. From the RTC produced by the wife, it is evident that the husband and his family members own 12 acres of land and the husband has 1/5th share in it. The husband has suppressed this fact and in his affidavit, dated 13.04.2023 filed before this Court, he has falsely stated that the family owns only 6 acres of land. From the RTC produced by the wife, it is evident that the husband and his family members own 12 acres of land and the husband has 1/5th share in it. The husband has suppressed this fact and in his affidavit, dated 13.04.2023 filed before this Court, he has falsely stated that the family owns only 6 acres of land. This is required to be noted that in addition to share in 12 acres of ancestral land, he owns 1.3 acres of self-acquired property. 24. It is also admitted in the cross-examination that the husband sold a site in Bangalore for Rs.18 lakhs. The wife contends that the real consideration is Rs.40 lakhs. However, there is no evidence to support the said contention. However, the sale of a site for Rs.18 lakhs is established. Admittedly, the amount is not shared with wife and children. 25. The evidence in Criminal Miscellaneous proceeding reveals that he has sold is hotel establishment in Bengaluru for Rs.6 lakhs. Though, he tried to make out a case that he had kept that amount in his in-law's house, same cannot be believed as the relationship between him and his wife had strained by then. Moreover, such a plea is not taken in pleading. 26. The learned JMFC on appreciation of evidence on record has concluded that the husband is running an ice cream parlour. Though the said parlour stands in the name of his brother's wife, the Court has also noticed that both the brother and the wife are employed and has drawn an inference that the husband is running the business. Even otherwise the husband owns agricultural lands. He has sold properties worth 25 lakhs (18 lakhs+6 lakhs). The answers in his cross-examination would demonstrate that he has not paid the school fees of his daughters. 27. We have considered the reasoning assigned by Family Court in awarding Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony. The fact of the matter is that the two minor daughters are living with the wife and the husband has not taken care of his two minor daughters. The wife and the daughters are driven to Court seeking maintenance. The husband owns agricultural lands and his liability is only Rs.3 lakhs which is raised for the purpose of cultivating land. The alleged independent income of the wife is not established. 28. The wife and the daughters are driven to Court seeking maintenance. The husband owns agricultural lands and his liability is only Rs.3 lakhs which is raised for the purpose of cultivating land. The alleged independent income of the wife is not established. 28. On consideration of materials on record, this Court is of the view that the award of Rs.15 lakhs as permanent alimony is not on the higher side. The Family Court has also taken note that the husband has sold a site for Rs.18 lakhs and he sold his hotel along with furniture. All these factors are taken into consideration before awarding Rs.15 lakhs as alimony. This Court does not find any ground to set aside the judgment and decree granting Rs.15 lakhs as alimony or to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in order to reduce the alimony. 29. As far as the contention of the wife in cross-objection seeking enhancement of alimony, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the wife that the husband has sold the property worth Rs.40 lakhs. However, the submission is not supported by any materials. As already noticed, that the husband has sold properties worth Rs.24 lakhs and he is also owning 1 acre 30 guntas self acquired property and also he is having 1/5th share in 12 acres of agricultural lands. It is also forthcoming from the record that wife has raised the two children and the husband hardly contributed to the same. For the aforementioned reasons and also taking into consideration that the daughters are not married and wife is now aged 46 years, this Court is of the view that the alimony has to be enhanced by Rs.5 lakhs and in all wife is entitled to Rs.20 lakhs as permanent alimony as against the claim for Rs.30 lakhs. To that extent the impugned judgment and decree are modified. 30. As far as the order passed in Criminal Misc. No.2/2014 is concerned Rs.5,000/- per month is awarded as maintenance in favour of the wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the daughters. The Court while passing the said order has also taken into consideration the evidence on record placed in the said proceedings, the probable expenses for the education of two minor daughters and other expenses to maintain the wife and the daughters. The Court while passing the said order has also taken into consideration the evidence on record placed in the said proceedings, the probable expenses for the education of two minor daughters and other expenses to maintain the wife and the daughters. The Court has concluded after analyzing the evidence on record that the husband must be earning a minimum of Rs.40,000/- per month from his business as well as the agricultural sources. 31. Considering the cost of living and income of the husband, this Court finds that the monthly maintenance ordered by the Court is not on higher side as contended by the husband. However, it is to be noticed that while passing the said order there was no order by the Family Court granting permanent alimony. Subsequent to the impugned order in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014, the Family Court has passed the decree for permanent alimony in favour of the wife. This Court in the cross-objection seeking enhancement of permanent alimony has awarded Rs.20 lakhs as permanent alimony. 32. This being the position the order passed by the JMFC in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014 awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, in favour of wife, for her life has to be modified. Accordingly, the award of maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month is set aside with effect from the date of this judgment. The husband is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014, till this date. 33. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014 is modified to the said extent. 34. Hence, the following: Order (i) MFA. No. 3143/2016 is rejected. (ii) MFA. Crob.No.90/2016 is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 15.03.2016 in M.C.No.28/2015, on the file of the Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore is partly modified. The wife is entitled to permanent alimony of Rs.20 lakhs from the husband. (iii) The amount of Rs.20 lakhs shall carry 6% interest per annum if not paid within six months from this date. (iv) RPFC No.49/2015 is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 02.12.2014 in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014 on the file of Family Court at Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is partly set aside. The wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the said petition till this date. (iv) RPFC No.49/2015 is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 02.12.2014 in Crl. Misc. No.2/2014 on the file of Family Court at Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is partly set aside. The wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the said petition till this date. The order awarding Rs.2,500/- per month to the children of the petitioner and respondent, till the children attain majority is not disturbed. (v) No orders as to costs.