F.A. 161 of 2013
CAN 3703 of 2016
Kishan Chandra Modak
Ava Bhadra Modak
Mr. S. T. Mina
Miss Prajaaini Das
Mr. Prabal Kumar Mukherjee
Mr. Suhrid Sur
Miss. Aditi Kumar
In this appeal we find that the only substantial evidence produced before
us to show the income of the appellant/husband, are his income tax returns. The
husband’s annual income is shown at about Rs. 1,83,533/-, Rs. 2,00,750/ and
Rs. 1,35,518 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016
The respondent did not claim any pendente lite alimony in the trial court.
The explanation for this is that the child was younger at that point of time. The
fact remains that the child was in existence at that point of time. Whether a child
attends school or not, considerable expenses are borne towards him or her, right
after birth but these expenses were never claimed from the husband. It is also
submitted on behalf of the appellant/husband that the wife has a monthly
income of Rs. 22,000/- (twenty two thousand) per month working as a nurse.
Learned counsel for the respondent admits that income of the wife is only
Rs. 13,000/-(thirteen thousand) per month.
The appellant/father denies the paternity of child. This point is being
canvassed right from the trial court stage.
Considering all the factors including the income of the parties, the need,
the respective allegations, the inflationary trend etc., we direct that for the time
being the appellant/husband will pay to the respondent/wife alimony pendente
lite at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ (one thousand five hundred) per month from August,
2018 payable monthly by 7th of each month in advance.
The litigation cost as claimed will be considered at the time of disposal of
The application for maintenance pendente lite (CAN 3703 of 2016) is
disposed of accordingly.
It is stated that the appeal is ready for hearing.
Let the appeal be listed on and from 26th July, 2018 as a hearing matter.
( I. P. Mukerji,J.)