PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THESE two applications are at the instance of the husband and they have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit. Accordingly, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience, C.O. No.3266 of 2011 is taken up first. C.O. No.3266 of 2011:- Challenge is to the Order No.88 dated June 10, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.20 of 2005 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2004. The petitioner filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage against the opposite party on the ground of cruelty. The wife / opposite party herein is contesting the said suit and she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner praying for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and a litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner filed a written objection against the said application. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and upon analysis of evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and a litigation costs of Rs.15,000/-. The said alimony will include the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month as awarded on an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the wife. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been filed by the husband.
(3.) NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the wife / opposite party has examined three witnesses in support of her contention. The husband has also examined himself as D.W.1 stating, inter alia, that the wife has income from car business and tuition. On the other hand, he is a casual worker of a concern and he earns a nominal amount of income only. So, the application should be dismissed.;