PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THESE two applications are directed against the Order No.50 dated December 23, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12 th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.3 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.16 of 2009 thereby granting alimony in favour of the wife and her daughter. Since, both the applications have arisen out of the same order of alimony, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the C.O. No.615 of 2012 is taken up first. C.O. No.615 of 2012:- This application has been preferred by the wife claiming alimony to the tune of Rs.36,940/- only per month for herself and her daughter and a sum of Rs.30,000/- only as litigation costs against her husband. The petitioner has contended that the parties were married on August 4, 1987 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. One daughter was born in the wedlock and the said daughter is now 10 years of age and is a school going student. The petitioner and her daughter are residing in the flat purchased by the husband. She is also enjoying the car purchased by the husband. The husband had stopped looking after the petitioner since the month of December 2008. The petitioner has no independent source of income and she is passing her days hard for providing maintenance for the two.
(2.) ON the other hand, the opposite party is a Marine Engineer and he earns Rs.3 lakh only per month from service. Beside that, he has income from other sources, such as, painting etc. and at present, his monthly income is about Rs.5 lakh only. So, the petitioner has claimed the alimony pendente lite for the amount mentioned above. The husband is contesting the said application contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the two and the birth of a child are admitted facts. The wife and the daughter are residing in the flat purchased by the husband and the husband is now repaying the loan by monthly instalments for the said flat. The wife is also enjoying a car purchased by the husband and thus, the wife is leading a luxurious life. The husband is now out of employment on health ground and at present, he has no source income. While they resided together, there was a joint account and on two occasions, the wife had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,53,311/- only from the said account without the permission and knowledge of the opposite party. So, such amount will be enough for the wife and daughter to get their livelihood. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/- only per month for the two from the date of filing of the application. The learned Trial Judge has also granted litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- only. He has also directed the husband to pay arrears of alimony by instalments. Being aggrieved, the wife has filed this application for enhancement of the alimony. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the wife has made details of her requirement for alimony pendente lite at page no.s 4 and 5 of her application showing the prayer for a sum of Rs.36,940/- only. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at his findings upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties on the matter of alimony. Previously, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application for alimony by the Order No.27 dated August 13, 2010. Being aggrieved by such order, the husband preferred a civil revision being C.O. No.2892 of 2010. While disposing of the said revision, by the Order dated March 17, 2011, this Bench directed the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the application for alimony within a period of 3 months from date. The husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh only to the wife and such order was complied with. It was also observed that the amount paid, shall be adjusted against the final order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order on the basis of the evidence on record.
(3.) AS noted above, the marriage between the two and the birth of a daughter in the wedlock are admitted facts. It is also an admitted fact that the daughter is now a student of Class-VIII of Mahadevi Birla Girls Higher Secondary School, Kolkata. The wife had to incur expenses for the education of the child as noted at page no.s 4 & 5 of the said application. Beside that, the wife has contended that she is now suffering from breast cancer and she had to expend a sum of Rs.94,442/- only for operation and chemotherapy and as such, she requires constant medical treatment. She has filed papers in support of such contention and so, there is no ground to disbelieve in such contention. It is also not in dispute that the husband is a Marine Engineer and that he was employed in the Shipping Corporation of India and later, he joined some other private companies. Admittedly, the parties have a joint account with the bank and the wife withdrew certain money, but, that too, when there was a good relationship between the two. By filing a counterobjection, the wife has denied that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,53,311/- only. She has contended that she signed the cheques at the request of the husband and in fact, the husband had withdrawn the money from the said bank and she merely signed on the cheques. Moreover, she signed cheques for withdrawal of money for maintenance while the husband was on voyage. She has stated that without the consent of her husband, she did not withdraw any money from the bank. Such statement of the wife being not specifically denied by the husband, is believable. Thereafter, the husband filed the said matrimonial suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly, the husband looked after his family, that is, the wife and the daughter and he provided for maintenance of his family upto December 2008. Thereafter, the husband did not provide any financial help to the wife and the daughter. The wife has stated in clear words that she has no independent source of income of her own. The petitioner has claimed that she requires Rs.10,000/- only per month for her medical treatment beside the alimony for other purposes, such as, food, clothing, etc. She has also contended that so far as the expenses for the daughter is concerned, the tuition fees for the daughter are to the tune of Rs.4,500/- only per month. The wife is required to incur compulsory expenses not only for food but also for her medical treatment and also for education of her daughter. As per evidence on record, the wife gets Rs.2,000/- only per month from the son begotten by her earlier marriage with another person. Admittedly, the said son is residing in the flat purchased by the husband. So, practically, the income of the wife from her son is to the tune of Rs.2,000/- only per month and this is the regular source of her income. This being the position, the amount granted by the learned Trial Judge, I am of the view, is nominal in consideration of the total expenditure to be borne by the wife as noted in page no.s 4 & 5 of the application.;