HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1639 OF 2007 ORDER : The 1st petitioner was the wife of the respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st petitioner through the respondent. The 1st petitioner claimed divorce from the respondent by laying O.P.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The respondent remained ex parte in O.P.No.29 of 2003. Through orders dated 10.09.2003, the learned Judge, Family Court dissolved the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent through a decree of divorce. Later the 1st petitioner, along with petitioners 2 and 3 laid I.A.No.247 of 2004 on 09.02.2004 claiming permanent alimony at Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent. I.A.No.247 of 2004 was laid under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned trial Judge allowed I.A.No.247 of 2004 in part. The claim of the petitioners for return of Rs.92,850/- constituting cloths, kitchen wear and crockery from the respondent was rejected by the Family Court. While the petitioners claimed permanent alimony at Rs.10,00,000/-, the Family Court awarded permanent alimony at Rs.1,00,000/- only. While the petitioners claimed permanent alimony not only on behalf of the 1st petitioner, but also on behalf of the petitioners 2 and 3, the impugned order dated 31.10.2006 is silent as to the persons to whom the permanent alimony was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the present revision. The respondent/husband of the 1st petitioner remained ex parte not only in O.P.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court and in I.A.No.247 of 2004 in O.P.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam but also before me. Although he was served with notice he did not appear before the Court. The question is as to what amount that the petitioners are entitled to? The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the learned Judge, Family Court is silent regarding the claim of the petitioners for the refund of Rs.92,850/- though the petitioners produced a list of movable properties including clothes, kitchen wear and crockery to a total value of Rs.92,850/-. The petitioners also filed two affidavits of the third parties before the learned Judge, Family Court. One of the third party affidavits was from a Bill Collector working with M/s Chandana Brothers, Visakhapatnam. The other third party affidavit was from the managing partner of M/s Afif & Co., Visakhapatnam. The affidavits are to the effect that the parents of the 1st petitioner purchased clothes and crockery as well as kitchen wear at the time of the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent. I am afraid that the affidavits do not establish that the clothes, crockery and kitchen wear remained in the house of the respondent. There is no other evidence to show that these items remained with the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled for the refund of Rs.92,850/- claimed by them as the value of the movable articles. The main relief however is in respect of the permanent alimony. The petitioners claimed permanent alimony at Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioners have not specifically claimed the amount of permanent alimony for the wife and permanent alimony for the children separately. Perhaps for this very reason, the trial Court awarded permanent alimony in a lumpsum on behalf of all the petitioners. As already pointed out, however, the main question is the quantum of permanent alimony that was awarded by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. As against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony, the learned Judge, Family Court awarded permanent alimony at Rs.1,00,000/- only. The learned trial Judge took the income of the father of the 1st petitioner into consideration. It would appear that the father of the 1st petitioner was an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Sri K.Shankaranarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the father of the 1st petitioner has retired from service. It is his contention that even otherwise, the income of the father of the 1st petitioner cannot be considered to determine the permanent alimony for the 1st petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon T.Mohan Reddy v Potu Krishnaveni[1]. A Division Bench of the A.P.High Court considered the question of permanent alimony payable to a Hindu wife in this case. The Court held that a specific application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not necessary. In that case where the wife was to maintain herself as well as her two minor children, the grant of permanent alimony by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at Rs.1,00,000/- was held to be not acceptable. I n Eda Aruna v Eda Nagi Reddy[2] , the Court observed that the income from the properties of the parents of the wife cannot be computed in determining the income of the wife in fixing the permanent alimony or alimony pendentilite . I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the income of the father of the 1st petitioner cannot be taken note of in determining the permanent alimony that the wife and the children should be entitled to. At the same time, the income of the husband/respondent is more or less a decisive factor in determining the quantum of permanent alimony that the petitioners as wife and children should be entitled to. It was averred in the affidavit that the husband/respondent was working as an Engineer in M/s Indian Aluminium Company Limited at Chennai and was drawing an income of Rs.20,000/- per month in 2004. The income of the husband in 2010 could not obviously be Rs.20,000/- per month. The expenses of the petitioners in 2010 also could not be the same as in 2004 when this petition was filed. I, therefore, consider that it would be just and proper to award permanent alimony at Rs.3,00,000/- for the 1st petitioner/wife and Rs.1,00,000/- each for the minor children petitioners 2 and 3. Accordingly, this revision is ordered determining the permanent alimony for the wife at Rs.3,00,000/- and at Rs.1,00,000/- each for petitioners 2 and 3, payable within one month from today. If the respondent/husband does not pay the same within one month from today, the same becomes payable with interest at 9% per annum from today till the payment. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 15th December 2010 PNV [1] AIR 2010 AP 117 [2] 2010(5) ALT 635