Mat.App. 9/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUTUM B.K. SINGH The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2004 passed by t he learned District Judge, Sivasagar in TS (Matrimonial) No.21/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge had directed that permanent alimony of Rs.3 lakhs be paid to the respondent/wife on the basis of the claim made by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/husband has preferred this appeal. On 7.12.2005 in MC No.3438/2005, it was directed that an amount of Rs.1500/- be deducted from the monthly salary of the appellant/husband and credited to the ac count of the respondent/wife. A direction was given to the Deputy Inspector of S chools, Nazira where the appellant/husband was working. It appears that this dir ection is being carried out and it was in fact confirmed on 11.4.2007 in the Mat . Appeal when it was directed that the maintenance as ordered on 7.12.2005 shall be arranged to be paid by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nazira, in terms of the earlier order dated 7.12.2005. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant/husband had filed a mis c. application being MC No.2686/2008. In this application, it is stated on affid avit that the respondent/wife is living with Tulan Deuri as his wife and that th e couple has one daughter. Along with affidavit, a report from the Sivsagar Poli ce under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed which confirms that the respondent/w ife is living with Tulan Dauri as his wife and they have one daughter. There is no appearance on behalf of Respondent/wife nor is there any denial of t he fact that she is living with Tulan Dauri as his wife and she has a daughter f rom him. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the subsequent develop ment and in view of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act it would b e in the interest of justice if the direction to pay permanent alimony to the re spondent/wife is modified. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits tha t out of Rs.3 lakhs, the respondent/wife has already received an amount of about Rs.90,000/-. Since she is now living with Tulan Deuri as his wife for the last two years and the couple has a daughter, there is no necessity of continuing the payment of alimony and the interest of justice would be served if this petition is closed on the basis of the payment already made by the appellant to the resp ondent/wife. Considering the material on record, we find that there is no dispute about the f act that the respondent/wife is living with Tulan Deuri as his wife and that the y have a daughter. It also appears from the record that the couple has been livi ng as husband and wife for the last two years. Apparently, the respondent/wife i s now being well looked after by Tulan Deuri. Consequently, there seems to be no reason to continue with the direction that the appellant should continue to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. Out of the awarded amount of Rs.3 lakhs, the appellant has already paid an amoun t of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent/wife and it would not be in the interest of j ustice to continue any further payment by the appellant in view of the changed c ircumstances. Consequently, we modify the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasaga r and direct that the amount of permanent alimony due and to be paid to the resp ondent/wife upto 31.1.2011 be paid in full satisfaction of the decree. The appeal is disposed of.