Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the wife/respondent and is directed against the order no.47 dated July 28, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifth Fast Track Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.3 of 2006 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2006.
(2.) THE opposite instituted a suit being matrimonial suit no.230 of 2005 (subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2006) before the learned District Judge, Alipore for dissolution of marriage. THE petitioner herein entered appearance in the said suit and she is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. She also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for alimony pendente lite for herself, her son and also litigation costs. That application for alimony was converted into the misc. case no.3 of 2006 and that was disposed of on July 28, 2009 by passing the impugned order granting alimony at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the petitioner, Rs.3,000/- per month for her minor son and the litigation costs of Rs.8,000/-. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the amount of alimony as granted by the learned Trial Judge is very low in consideration of the income of the husband/opposite party herein. He points out that as per petition for alimony, the husband has many properties at different places. Amounts other properties, the opposite party and his brothers have a four-storied building at 743, Diamond Harbour Road under P.S. Thakurpukur and the opposite party earns 1/4th share of the rental income from the said property and such income of the opposite is about Rs.29,000/- per month. Beside that the opposite party has a joint family business of fishing trawler, namely Hansraj, Hala, Bhai Bhai which fetches approximately Rs.18,00,000/- per year and out of such income the opposite party earns Rs.30,000/- per month. Moreover, the husband has income from other sources and thus his total monthly income is mere Rs.60,000/-. For that reason, the petitioner has claimed alimony at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself, Rs.15,000/- per month for minor son and Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs. The parties have adduced evidence with regard to that misc. case and it is revealed from evidence that the husband and his brothers are the owners of a four storied tenanted building at Diamond Harbour Road, under P.S. Thakurpukur and that they heave a family fishing business having three trawlers. The father of the husband is now dead. Therefore, the contention of the husband that he is unemployed and he has no independent income cannot be believed in view of the materials on record. During examination, the husband has clearly stated that he did not take any information regarding maintenance of his wife and son. Such statement of the husband clearly indicates that the husband neglects to pay the maintenance for his wife and the son. The wife has clearly stated that she has no income. This being the position, the contention of the husband that he has no income, cannot be believed. He has become the owner of the many properties and he has the sources of income as stated earlier. So, the observation of the learned Trial Judge that the income of the husband should be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month only, cannot be accepted. The wife has stated that the husband earns minimum Rs.60,000/- per month. Upon due consideration of the nature of the business, such contention of the wife cannot be disbelieved.
(3.) DURING argument, it is submitted that the son of the parties is now 10 years of age and he is a student. He is fully dependant on his mother. There is no indication that the husband is paying any maintenance for the child. Therefore, I am of the clear view that if the husband is directed to pay at the rate of RS.5,000/- per month for the wife and the son each, it will not be unjustified at all for the husband though he is not contesting. Similarly, the wife is also entitled to get the litigation costs. I hold that it will not be unjustified if the husband is directed to pay the litigation costs of Rs.15,000/- as a lumpsum amount at a time. So, this application succeeds. The impugned order needs modification. The application is allowed.;