Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.50 dated September 23, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.47 of 2007 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.300 of 2007.
(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner instituted a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.300 of 2007 against the opposite party under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. THE wife/opposite party herein entered appearance in the said suit and she is contesting the same by filing a written statement. THE wife filed an application praying for alimony pendente lite and litigation costs. That application has been converted into a misc. case being Misc. Case No.47 of 2007. THE parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions in the said misc. case and upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application for alimony and also amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. Being aggrieved by such orders, the husband/petitioner herein has come up with this application. Now, the point for consideration is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in granting the alimony in the above manner. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, this Bench finds that in the instant case the parties have adduced evidence in support of their contention. The marriage between the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted position that the parties have been residing separately with effect from September 27, 2006. It is also an admitted position that the husband has not paid any maintenance to the wife since September 27, 2006. From the evidence on record, it has also appeared that the wife is now temporarily engaged as part-time teacher in a primary school drawing Rs.1,500/- only per month. It has also revealed from the evidence that the husband is a distributor of medicines and he runs a business of medicine as distributor under the name and style as Jimmy Enterprise. He supplied medicines to different shops, concerns, etc. as distributor and in order to run his business, he even engaged an employee named Suman Chowdhury. The wife has been able to prove that the husband pays Rs.3,500/- per month to his employee, namely Suman Chowdhury. While deposing before the learned Trial Judge, the husband contended that he does not know Suman Chowdhury at all and he is not an employee under him in running his distributorship business on medicine in the name and style as Jimmy Enterprise. But when one remuneration slip of Suman Chowdhury was tendered before him during cross-examination, he has admitted that it was issued by him in respect of his employee, Suman Chowdhury. Such conduct clearly shows that the husband is suppressing something relating to his income so as to avoid payment of alimony to the wife. Upon analyzing evidence, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the husband earns the minimum Rs.20,000/- per month from his business in the name and style as Jimmy Enterprise and as such, he has granted alimony and litigation costs in the manner stated above. Thus, it reveals from the evidence on record that the findings of the learned Trial Judge is based on evidence tendered by the parties and that there is no perversity at all either with regard to the income of the husband or the quantum of alimony and the litigation costs. When the learned Trial Judge has arrived at a conclusion based on evidence and the findings does not suffer from any perversity according to the decision of 2009 (6) Supreme 78, the High Court should not interfere with the findings arrived at by the lower Court.
(3.) AS regards engagement of the wife in a primary school, this Bench finds that the appointment of the wife in the school is temporary as part time teacher. This is necessary for the wife for her survival. The temporary engagement cannot be considered as a permanent source of income. There is no certainty how long the wife would be able to continue with the said engagement. Moreover, if that meagre amount is taken into consideration, yet this Bench feels that the quantum of alimony or litigation costs cannot be said excessive as per evidence on record.;