IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ^ APPELLANT ^-^r. ^r^- N0,,f3/_ /2QQ5 a V] f^^^ '2^ ,w .^y...-y ^' ^"A ^^ Saligram, S/o. Bahalram Sahu Aged about 38 yearfi R/o. Ramnagar Shatlfi^tiam Ghat, Ravanbhata, Near Dewangan Pan Centre Supela, Bhilai.P.S. Supela Bhitai, Tahsil and Distn'ct Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. ShaKfeintala //o. Saligram Sahu Aged about 34 years R/o. Karsa, P.S. Bhilai-3 Tahsil Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARR1AGE ACT <y RESPONDENT ^/OtA /| i4-^^ fm~T" HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Before: Hon'ble Shri Justice Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh FirstADpeaINo.131 /2005 Saligram Vs. Smt. Shakuntaia Post for Orders: ^ -01-2007 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge HSGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR \ Before: Hon?b!e Shri Justice Di!ip Raosaheb Deshmykh FirstAppealNo.131/2005 Saligram Vs. Smt. Shakuntaia. Shri R. Pradhan, Counsel forthe appellant. Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, Counse! for respondent. JUDGIVIENT (Deiivered on this ^/i^!ay ofJanuary, 2007) Vide order dated 07-03-1992 under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, the 4th Additionai District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.S-A/SO granted a decree for judicial separation between the fr^/o spouses and had further ordered that the appellant-husband herein shali pay a sum of Rs.200/" as permanent aiimony to the respondent- wife. (2) On 18-01-2003 the respondent-wife moved an application before the 5th Additional District Judge, Durg under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act for award of permanent alimony @ Rs.3000/- per month under changed circumstances. The appeilant-husband resisted the appiication and prayed that in the changed circumstances the permanent aiimony of Rs.200/- awarded earlier to the respondent-wife should aiso be set aside. (3) The respondent-wife did not iead any documentary evidence in support of her contention that the appellant-husband possessed agriculture lands and derived income therefrom. In her testimony, she stated that she had never visited the place where the agricuiture lands were situated. It also emerged from the evidence led by the parties ^ -^- that the appeiiant-husband had iost his job in the Cooperative Society and thus dld not derive any income as saiary. The appeliant-husband also dld not iead any evidence to show that the respondent-wife possessed agriculture lands and derived income frorn the job of 'Aangan Badi Worker'. (4) The learned 7th Additionai District Judge, Durg while passing the impugned order dated 11-03-2005 heid that both the appellant- husband as weil as the respondent-wife had faiied to establish the aiieged change in the circumstances after the av^ard of permanent alimony of Rs.200/- per month on 07-03-1992 in Civii Suit No. 8-A/90. However, it took into conslderation the fact that there was a tremendous increase in the cost of iiving and therefore deemed It fit that the permanent aiimony awarded @ Rs.200/- per month in the year 1992 ' be atleast enhanced @ Rs.1000/" per rnonth in order to be meaningfui. Taking a pragmatic view of the matter, i am of the consldered opinion that the Impugned order does not suffer from any illegaiity. This Court can take judlciai notice of the tremendous rise in the cost of livlng in tt^e last two decades. Thls change in clrcumstance requires no proof. in this view of the matter, the enhancement of permanent a!lmony from Rs.200/- per month awarded in the year 1992 to Rs.1000/- per month vide order dated 11-03-2005 cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable In view of the tremendous rise in the cost of living and also in order to be meaningfui. (5) in the resuit, there is no substance in this appeal whlch is accordingiy dismissed at the stage of admlssion. No order as to costs. Tumane Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge