CO 4529 of 2016
(Nilanjan Chowdhury -vs- Sudakshina Law (Chowdhury)
Mr. Om Narayan Rai
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tiwari….for the petitioner
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajat Dutta
Ms. Shaoni Dey …..for the opposite party/wife
The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order no. 63 dated 24th November, 2016 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-3, Alipore in Miscellaneous
Case no. 2 of 2016 arising out of Matrimonial Suit no. 1 of 2015, which has been
filed by the petitioner/ husband against the opposite party/wife on the ground of
cruelty for a decree of divorce.
Upon entering appearance the opposite party/wife filed an application being
Misc. Case no. 2 of 2016 praying for alimony pendente lite and for litigation cost.
The learned Judge was pleased to allow the misc. case on contest with litigation
cost of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- per month for maintenance pendente
lite payable by
the husband/petitioner to the opposite party/wife from the date of passing of the
order till the date of disposal of the matrimonial suit.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/husband being an employee of a private company, earned Rs. 30,000/-
per month and it has been admitted by the husband before the learned Trial Court
that he was working for gain at Chowdhury Estate Private Ltd. earning Rs.30,000/-
per month but he has failed to produce any salary slip or evidence showing his
actual income when he claimed that he has left the said job. It is further submitted
that the learned Trial Court has granted 50% of the earning of the husband if his
income is taken to be Rs. 30,000/- per month. Lastly, it is submitted that the wife
is residing in her matrimonial house and she has some earning compared to her
husband, but there is no tangible document on this ground.
Reference has been made to a decision in the case of Surendra Nath Arora -vs-
Puspa Arora reported in (1979) 1 CHN 15/(1978) 2 CLJ 602,
wherein it has been observed that “there is no hard and fast rule on the basis of
which the amount can be determined with precision. It depends on a variety of
facts and circumstances though ordinarily and in the absence of special
circumstances, one fifth of the husband’s income less wife’s income, if any, is taken
as a safe guide.”
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff/petitioner/husband
appears to have suppressed the fact of his earning before the learned Trial Court, as
it is detected from the observation made in the order itself by having taken plea that
he has left the job of private nature wherefrom he has to earn Rs. 30,000/- per
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and upon consideration of the
order impugned, I am not inclined to modify the quantum of maintenance pendente
lite @ Rs. 15,000/- per month payable by the husband to the wife from the date of
the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
However, the direction for litigation cost of Rs.5000/- per month payable by
the husband/petitioner to the wife/opposite party, is
required to be modified to the extent that the petitioner/husband shall pay a
consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation cost for effective steps and
hearing of the matrimonial suit.
Thus, the revisional application, being CO 4529 of 2016, is disposed of
without any order as to costs.
The department is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Trial
Court, so that the matrimonial suit is taken up for hearing as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the
parties on priority basis.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)