Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated April 19, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.14 of 2001 thereby directing the petitioner to pay alimony at the enhanced rate to the opposite party.
(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioner was married to opposite party in the year 1998 and one child was born in the wedlock. Due to some matrimonial problems, the petitioner filed a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. THE opposite party entered an appearance and she is contesting the said matrimonial suit. She filed an application claiming maintenance. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony of Rs.600/- per month more, in addition to the alimony already granted in favour of the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the extent of Rs.2200/-, so that the total maintenance would will become Rs.2800/- per month for herself and the child. Being aggrieved by that order, the wife referred a revisional application for enhancement of the alimony and this Hon?ble Court enhanced the amount to Rs.3000/- per month for herself and her minor child. Thereafter, the wife / opposite party herein filed another application for enhancement of alimony. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the husband. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that by the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has granted alimony to the wife to the extent of Rs.2500/- per month and for the minor child at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month, in all Rs.6000/- per month from the month of July 2010. The learned Trial Judge has also directed the husband to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the wife within one month from the date of the order. Admittedly, the wife is a graduate with honours in English and the husband is an M.B.B.S. Doctor doing private practice. The husband has contended that his monthly average income is of Rs.12000/- and he has furnished the copy of the Income Tax Return to that effect. The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved in the contention of the husband as to his income on the ground that he is an M.B.B.S. doctor and his income cannot be to the extent of Rs.12000/- per month. Though, the learned Trial Judge did not observe anything as to the present income of the husband yet in consideration of the Income Tax Return for the financial year 2008-09, it could be gathered that his current income must have increased. The husband also did not file the copy of the last Income Tax Return. So, he has suppressed the current income. In any way, it cannot be less than Rs.12000/- per month. As regards, the income of the wife, there is no documentary evidence. The wife has stated that she has no income. On the other hand, the husband has contended that the wife earns Rs.10000/- per month by tuition. Though, it may be the situation that the wife earns something by private tuition, as there is no document regarding regular income, it could at best be asserted that she is earning something by private tuition only for the purpose of survival. So, it cannot be treated as a regular income.;