JUDGMENT : M.B. Snehalatha, J. Appellant/wife is the petitioner in O.P. No.818/2021 of Family Court, Kannur. She filed the Original Petition seeking divorce, permanent alimony and damages for marital tort. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce and partially allowed appellant's claim for permanent alimony. The claim for damages was disallowed. Dissatisfied with the quantum of permanent alimony and the declinment of her claim for damages for marital tort, this appeal has been preferred by her. 2. Appellant’s case is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 25.5.2008 as per Special Marriage Act ; that in the said wedlock, two children were born to them; that after the marriage, respondent and his parents ill-treated her and subjected her to cruelty alleging that she did not bring enough dowry as expected by them. At the time of marriage, appellant was employed in Bangalore and respondent was employed in Wayanad. Subsequently, respondent got employment as a clerk in the GST department. After the birth of the 1 st child, appellant resigned her job and resided with the respondent and his parents. Respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty and he harassed her mentally and physically. He had an extramarital affair with a colleague of his and whenever the appellant questioned it, he used to assault her. He physically assaulted her and caused grievous hurt and also made attempts to kill her. At last, she preferred a complaint before the Police pursuant to which the Police registered a crime against him . Due to the cruelty of the respondent, appellant and her children had to leave the company of the respondent. Respondent failed to maintain the appellant though he has got sufficient means and income. Appellant has no job or income of her own. She sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and claimed permanent alimony of Rs.30 lakhs. She also claimed Rs.25 lakhs as damages for the marital tort committed by the respondent. 3. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and the birth of two children in the said wedlock. But he denied the entire allegations of cruelty levelled against him. He contended that appellant and children left his company without his knowledge. She also claimed Rs.25 lakhs as damages for the marital tort committed by the respondent. 3. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and the birth of two children in the said wedlock. But he denied the entire allegations of cruelty levelled against him. He contended that appellant and children left his company without his knowledge. It was also contended that the appellant is still working in the BPO industry and is also earning income from the online business carried on by her and is not entitled to get any amount as permanent alimony or damages. 4. Evidence consist of the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. 5. After trial, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as permanent alimony to the appellant. Her claim for damages for marital tort was rejected by the Family Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court went wrong in limiting the claim for permanent alimony to Rs.5 lakhs; that the Family Court failed to appreciate the standard of living of the parties during the marital life, the cost of living, the age of the appellant and needs of the children; that the Family Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant has no job or income and she had to resign her job for the welfare of the family. Further, it was contended that the Family Court went wrong in dismissing the appellant’s claim for compensation for marital tort, though the Court found that the respondent subjected her to cruelty; that the Family Court ought to have taken note of the fact that respondent was booked by the police for committing the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. 7. Though notice was served to the respondent, he failed to appear and did not take part in this appeal proceedings. 8. The points for consideration in this appeal are as follows:- a) Whether the appellant/wife is entitled to get an enhanced amount towards permanent alimony? b) Whether the appellant/wife is entitled to get any amount as damages for marital tort from the respondent? If so what is the quantum? 9. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent got married on 25.5.2008 and their marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act . b) Whether the appellant/wife is entitled to get any amount as damages for marital tort from the respondent? If so what is the quantum? 9. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent got married on 25.5.2008 and their marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act . It is also not in dispute that two children were born to them in the said wedlock. 10. The version of appellant who was examined as PW1 is that at the time of marriage, respondent was working as a teacher at Vellamunda and the appellant was working in a BPO industry at Bangalore. In 2009, respondent got employment as VEO at Thottilpalam in Calicut. In 2010, he got employment as a clerk in the GST department at Mananthavady. After the delivery of the 1 st child, appellant resigned her job to look after the family. According to her, respondent and his parents subjected her to cruelty; that after the birth of the second child, the cruelty of the respondent and his parents became intolerable and unbearable; that the respondent used to manhandle her on almost all days after consuming alcohol. Her version is that respondent had an extra marital affair with one of his colleagues in the GST department and whenever she questioned it, he used to assault her. Her further version is that in 2016, she purchased a landed property in Meenangadi by utilizing her savings and also with the financial assistance of her parents; that after purchase of the said property, respondent pressurised her to transfer the said property in his name, and when she could not oblige to the said demand, he brutally assaulted her and verbally abused her. She has further testified that in the wee hours of 17.8.2020, respondent attempted to kill her by throwing a pot against her head and on another occasion, he attempted to endanger her life by leaving open the cooking gas pipe. Her further version is that on 27.9.2020, the respondent assaulted and caused grievous injuries to her and openly declared that he would not allow her and the children to reside in the house and accordingly her brother took them to her parental home. Her further version is that on 27.9.2020, the respondent assaulted and caused grievous injuries to her and openly declared that he would not allow her and the children to reside in the house and accordingly her brother took them to her parental home. Appellant has further testified that pursuant to a complaint laid by her before the Police regarding the acts of cruelty, the police registered a crime against the respondent and it was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta as C.C.No.2/2021. 11. Respondent who was examined as RW1 has denied the versions of PW1. According to him, it was the appellant who ill-treated him on the ground that he belonged to a lower caste. He denied the version of PW1 that he ousted her and the children from the rented house. According to him, on 5.2.2021, appellant, along with the children, left the house without his knowledge. He has further testified that the immovable property mentioned in the petition was purchased by him by using his own funds, though it was registered in the name of the appellant and he never demanded her to convey the said property in his name as alleged. He also denied the allegations of physical and mental cruelty levelled against him and also denied her claim for damages for marital tort. He resisted appellants' claim for permanent alimony and contended that appellant is still working in BPO industry and is also earning income from online business and therefore, she is not entitled to get any amount as permanent alimony. 12. The Family court has found that wife has made out a case for granting divorce by proving mental cruelty. The decree of divorce granted to the wife on the ground of cruelty has not been challenged by the respondent. The provision relating to permanent alimony is contained in Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act , 1954. Since a decree of divorce has been granted by the Family Court, she is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. The grievance of the appellant/wife is that Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Family Court towards permanent alimony is quite insufficient. 13. While awarding permanent alimony, courts shall consider several relevant facts to ensure that the order is just fair and reasonable. The court has to take into account the income, assets and financial capacity of both the husband and wife. The grievance of the appellant/wife is that Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Family Court towards permanent alimony is quite insufficient. 13. While awarding permanent alimony, courts shall consider several relevant facts to ensure that the order is just fair and reasonable. The court has to take into account the income, assets and financial capacity of both the husband and wife. The reasonable needs and liabilities of both parties are to be considered. Standard of living during marriage is to be considered so that wife can maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable that enjoyed during the marriage. The duration of marriage is yet another fact to be taken into account. The court has also to consider whether the wife has independent income and means. Sacrifice of carrier for the welfare of the family is also to be considered while fixing permanent alimony. 14. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC112] while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, the Apex court observed that while granting permanent alimony the court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status, the mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. It is the duty of the court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. The living need not be luxurious but simultaneously, she should not be left to live in discomfort. 15. In Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ], the Apex Court has dealt with the parameters to be considered while awarding the permanent alimony/maintenance and held as under: “The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded . There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded . The fac- tors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same stan- dard of living as she was accustomed to in her matri- monial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working dur- ing the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and look- ing after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the re- spondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 16. Keeping in mind, the aforesaid broad principles we may now proceed to fix the quantum. 17. Admittedly, the respondent is working as an inspector in GST department. The couple has two sons who are students and they are staying with the appellant. Appellant’s case is that, though at the time of marriage, she was employed in Bangalore in BPO industry, she had to resign the said job due to her marital obligations as a wife and the mother of two children. 18. Having regard to the standard of living of the parties, cost of living and also taking into account the fact that the appellant has no job or income, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Family Court towards permanent alimony is quite insufficient. Taking into account the position and status of the appellant, the reasonable needs of the appellant, the cost of living and the duration of the marriage, we find that appellant is entitled to Rs.25 lakhs as permanent alimony instead of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Family Court. 19. Taking into account the position and status of the appellant, the reasonable needs of the appellant, the cost of living and the duration of the marriage, we find that appellant is entitled to Rs.25 lakhs as permanent alimony instead of Rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Family Court. 19. Yet another claim made by the appellant is the damages on account of the matrimonial cruelty committed by the respondent. 20. The case of the appellant is that after the marriage, respondent physically and mentally harassed her and therefore she is entitled to damages for the marital tort. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court has granted a decree of divorce to the appellant on the ground of cruelty and the said finding has become final. 21. The specific case of the appellant is that the respondent mentally and physically harassed her; that he manhandled her on several occasions and at last, she had to leave the matrimonial home along with her children. The evidence on record would also show that she had laid a complaint before the SHO, Kalpetta qua the mental and physical cruelty subjected by the respondent and the police registered a crime as Crime No.833/2020 of Kalpetta Police Station against the respondent. It is in evidence that after the investigation, police filed final report against the respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Ext.A2 is the copy of FIR and Ext.A3 is the final report. 22. The finding of the Family Court that respondent subjected the appellant to physical and mental cruelty and therefore she is entitled to get the decree of divorce has become final. The evidence on record would show that respondent subjected the appellant to mental and physical cruelty. Therefore, appellant is entitled to get damages for the marital tort from the respondent. Taking into account the facts and attending circumstances, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.1 lakh as damages would be apposite. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: a) The judgment and decree of the Family Court directing the respondent to pay Rs.5 lakhs as permanent alimony is modified and the respondent shall pay Rs.25 lakhs as permanent alimony to the appellant with 6% interest from this date till the date of realization. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: a) The judgment and decree of the Family Court directing the respondent to pay Rs.5 lakhs as permanent alimony is modified and the respondent shall pay Rs.25 lakhs as permanent alimony to the appellant with 6% interest from this date till the date of realization. b) Respondent shall also pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the appellant towards damages for marital tort with 6% interest from this date till realization. c) Respondent is liable for the cost also.