PRASENJIT MANDAL,J - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated June 27, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Barasat in Matrimonial Suit No.90 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
(2.) THE husband / opposite party herein instituted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage against the wife / petitioner herein. The petitioner is contesting the said matrimonial proceeding by denying the material allegations raised in the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony pendente lite and for litigation costs. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has granted pendente lite alimony at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the wife / petitioner. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of alimony granted by the impugned order. According to her, the husband is a qualified Chartered Accountant and he has his own firm. Moreover, he is an able-bodied person. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has claimed alimony at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.
(3.) THE husband has denied that he has income from his own firm. According to him, he had a firm of his own, but, the said firm had been closed because of the torture upon him by the petitioner. The parties did not adduce oral evidence. On the basis of the rival contentions supported by affidavits, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the husband was paying maintenance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month in spite of closer of his firm. Ultimately, when the husband stopped payment, the application for alimony pendente lite was filed on April 19, 2008.;