1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2009 Dr. Atul Laxmichand Gosar (Shah) ..Appellant Vs. Smt. Kashmira Atul Gosar (Shah) ..Respondent Mr. Samir A. Vaidya for appellant. Mr. Sasi Nair for respondent CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. June 30, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Vaidya the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sasi Nair appears for the respondent. 2. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises from the decree of divorce dated 2/12/2008 passed by the Family Court in Petition A-1222 of 2005. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:- “1. The Petition is allowed. 2. The marriage solemnized between the Petitioner and Respondent on 2 26th December, 1996, at Mumbai is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; 3. The Respondent shall pay the amount of permanent alimony of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Petitioner within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the Petitioner is entitled to claim the same alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per month from the date of order till realization of entire amount. 4. The Petitioner is entitled for her Streedhan which is recovered by Police from the residence of the Respondent during investigation of F.I.R. Dated 23rd June 2005 as specifically mentioned in Exhibits 42 and 43; 5. The Respondent shall pay cost of this Petition to the Petitioner and shall bear his own cost. 6. Decree be drawn accordingly.” 3. The parties were married on 26/12/1996 and as per the contentions of the appellant, they stayed together till 5/3/2005. The respondent lodged criminal complaint on 23/6/2005 with the Bhoiwada Police Station for the alleged acts of harassment and mental cruelty punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. Before filing the said complaint, she had filed M.J. Petition No.A-1222 of 2005 on 18/6/2005 and sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion and she has succeeded in the said petition. The learned 3 Judge of the Family Court has awarded by way of permanent alimony an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and with interest at 6% per month from the date of the order till its realization. The appellant is aggrieved only by the order of permanent alimony and it is submitted by Mr. Vaidya that it is exorbitant and unjust as well as improper. 4. It came in the evidence before the Family Court that the respondent on obtaining the degree of B.Sc. came to be employed and while she was staying with the appellant as his wife she was working with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory on a monthly salary starting from Rs.3000/- and ending at Rs.4500/- per month. After she separated from the appellant, she joined Birla Sunlight Insurance Company in March, 2006 and after deductions she was drawing a salary of Rs.21,000/- per month. The income tax returns of the appellant, on the other hand, in the year 2006-07 indicated the annual income of Rs.1,21,550/- and the income was shown by way of consultancy charges. The appellant is a medical practitioner. Mr. Vaidya, therefore, submitted that when the respondent was drawing or continues to draw more salary than the income of the appellant, there was no justification in awarding an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of permanent alimony. We are not impressed by these submissions. It is well settled that the term “alimony” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not include maintenance alone and it inculpates in its sweep the provision for the residential accommodation as well. Though the respondent is employed, there is no evidence brought on record by the present appellant either before us or before the Family Court to show that she has her own house. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- so granted by the Family Court ought to take into consideration the basic requirements to provide for shelter and other support. At a place like Thane, even a single room accommodation 4 may not be available on ownership basis. Even to take on rent, a small flat, the respondent may be required to pay a huge deposit amount. 5. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the arguments advanced before us that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is on the higher side or it is exorbitant. The parties have stayed together for about seven years as husband and wife and the Family Court accepted the case of the wife that she was treated with cruelty and the husband had deserted her. 6. Hence, the appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Civil Application No. 133 of 2009 does not survive and the same shall stand disposed as such. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)