Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the wife/respondent and is directed against the order no.86 dated August 30, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.79 of 2009 thereby allowing an application for enhancement of alimony in part.
(2.) THE husband/opposite party instituted the said matrimonial suit for divorce and the wife/petitioner herein is contesting the said matrimonial suit. THE wife also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M.R. Case No.451 of 1992 and as per order of the learned Magistrate, the husband/opposite party herein has been paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In 2000, the wife was granted alimony at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. THEreafter, the wife filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the income of her husband had been increased from 6,000/- per month to Rs.20,00/- and odd per month and so she claimed for enhancement of the maintenance. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge granted alimony at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month but, he did not award any litigation cost further. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order is justified or not. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the husband filed the pay slip for the month of July, 2010 which lays down the gross pay of the husband as Rs.20,456/- out of which the husband subscribes to the G.P.F. to the extent of Rs.8,000/- beside the other compulsory deposits and festival advance of Rs.300/- per month. The husband is not required to deposit Rs.8,000/- per month towards the G.P.F. and it can be easily understood that such heavy amount is being deposited to show that his net pay is to the extent of Rs.11,996/- only. The learned Trial Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has observed that in consideration of the price hike of the essential commodities, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month would be just and proper alimony pendente lite for the respondent/wife. Thus, the learned Trial Judge has enhanced the alimony from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. Upon consideration of the application for enhancement and its objection as well as the pay slip, I think this amount is justified and there is nothing to interfere with such amount of alimony.
(3.) SO far as the litigation cost is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has observed that once she was allowed litigation cost at the initial stage by the order dated November 27, 2000. The learned Trial Judge granted litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- only. The said matrimonial suit is still pending and the petitioner is to expend money for litigation purposes. This being the position, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the claim for litigation cost. Initially, a nominal amount of Rs.2,000/- only was granted as litigation cost. Having considered the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the enhancement of the pay, I am of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost should also be awarded in favour of the wife/petitioner. So, the impugned order should be partially modified accordingly.;