Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010094332023 2026:GAU-AS:1871 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Mat.App./20/2023 XXXX XXXX W/O PUJA BORMAHELA, D/O KHARGESWAR DAIMARY, VILL.- SAHARIA, P.O. AND MOUZA- DHING, P.S.- DHING, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782123. VERSUS XXXX XXXX S/O MONTI RAM BORMAHELA, VILL.- BORBARI, P.O. AND P.S.- LAHARIGHAT, MOUZA- LAHARIGHAT, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782127. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S AFRIDI,MR S H MAHMUD,MR. S. SUR,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B BISHAYA, MR. K M HALOI Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife. Also heard Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband. 2. By filing the present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant/wife has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon in T.S.(D) Case No. 30/2020, whereby the petition for divorce filed by the respondent/husband was allowed. 3. The brief facts, as emerge from the record, are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 28.08.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. The parties thereafter lived together as husband and wife, out of which wedlock a female child was born, who is presently about nine years of age. 4. It is the specific case of the appellant/wife that during the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent/husband subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty and maintained illicit relationships with several women, on whom he allegedly spent substantial amounts. It is further stated that though she had instituted two cases against the respondent/husband, the same were not pursued on his assurance that she would be properly maintained. Subsequently, however, the respondent/husband instituted a suit for divorce before the learned District Judge, Morigaon. Page No.# 3/5 5. The learned District Judge, Morigaon, by the impugned judgment, granted a decree of divorce and awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant/wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Additionally, the respondent/husband was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the minor child under Section 26 of the Act until further orders. 6. Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant/wife, submits that the permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded by the learned District Judge is not commensurate with the income of the respondent/husband. It is further contended that instead of monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for the minor child, a one-time lump sum amount ought to have been directed. 7. Per contra, Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, submits that the learned District Judge, Morigaon, upon due assessment of the financial capacity of the respondent/husband, has awarded a just and reasonable amount towards permanent alimony and maintenance, and therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the decree of divorce is not under challenge on merits. The limited grievance raised in the present appeal pertains only to the quantum of permanent alimony awarded to the appellant/wife. Page No.# 4/5 10. From the materials on record, it is evident that the respondent/husband is serving in the Indian Army (Assam Regiment) and was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs. 55,068/- at the relevant point of time. The learned District Judge, Morigaon, upon taking into account the admitted salary, statutory deductions, contractual liabilities, and the fluctuating nature of income on account of posting, reasonably assessed the monthly income of the respondent/husband at Rs. 50,000/-. 11. On the basis of the said assessed income, the learned District Judge awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the appellant/wife, which roughly corresponds to twenty times the monthly income of the respondent/husband, while also keeping in view his obligation to maintain the minor child. 12. After considering the needs of the minor child vis-à-vis the paying capacity of the respondent/husband, the learned District Judge further directed payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the quantum of permanent alimony and maintenance awarded by the learned District Judge, Morigaon, is fair, reasonable, and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 14. Consequently, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. Page No.# 5/5 15. The matrimonial appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 16. Send back the Trial Court Records (TCR). JUDGE Comparing Assistant