IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.708 of 2008 SMT. PRATIBHA RAI, Wife of Sri Dilip Kumar Thakur, Resident of Village – Rampur, P.O.- Kanaujer, P.S. – Bishanpur, District – Darbhanga Presently residing with her mother at Mohalla – Magardahi, Ward No. 15, Behind Railway Hospital, Town, P.S. and District –Samastipur. --------- O.P. Ist Party/Appellant -:Versus:- 1. SRI DILIP KUMAR THAKUR, Son of Sri Ramdeo Thakur, Resident of Village – Rampur, P.O. – Kanaujer, P.S. – Bishanpur, District – Darbhanga. …………..Petitioner/Respondent 1st Party 2. NABIN KUMAR PANDEY, Son of Chandrakant Pandey, Resident of Mohalla – Krishnapuri, Gali No. 1, Sonbarsha Chowk, Town, P.S. and District – Samastipur. ……………O.P. IInd Party/Respondents/2nd Parties. ----------- 5/ 05.11.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner is divorced wife of Respondent No. 1. This appeal has been filed only against a part of the judgment and order of the Family Court, Darbhanga whereby the Court has decided not to grant any alimony to the appellant. On going through the judgment and order under appeal and after hearing the parties, we find that admittedly Respondent No. 1 is without any employment and dependent solely upon agricultural income of Seven Bighas of land which is said to be in a flood affected area. The Court below has estimated his income as Rs. 1200/- per month only. On the other hand materials on 2 record disclose that the appellant has been gifted with some property in Samastipur by her mother which is fetching her monthly rental of Rs. 1200/- per month and some money is also deposited in her name although there is a defence that appellant’s brothers also have claimed over part of that money. On behalf of appellant, it has been submitted that the divorce by mutual consent has materialized after 22 years of marriage and, therefore, the appellant should be allowed some amount of money as permanent alimony. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, however submits that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act treats husband and wife on same footing for the purpose of claiming alimony and in this case it is apparent that income of the appellant is not less than that of Respondent No. 1. However, in order to satisfy the repeated claim made on behalf of the appellant that any amount whatsoever 3 should have been given as permanent alimony, on behalf of Respondent No. 1 it has been agreed that he shall pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant within a period of one month. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no good ground to grant any other relief to the appellant than what has been offered by the Respondent No. 1 already noticed above. With only such modification in the judgment and order under appeal, this appeal is dismissed. kksinha/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )