TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) BOTH these revisional applications were directed against the order No.139 dated 5th of May, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No.13 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.26 of 2008.
(2.) SHIB Shankar Rungta (petitioner of C. O.2529 of 2012 and O. P. of C. O. No.3105 of 2012) filed a divorce suit being Mat. Suit No.26 of 2008 against wife Poonam Rungta ( O. P. of C. No.2529 of 2012 and petitioner of C. O. No.3105 of 2012). In said Matrimonial suit the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1955) praying for pendente lite maintenance. Her specific case was that their marriage was held on 10th of December, 1986 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and that three children namely two daughters and one son were born from said wedlock. It is further case that the petitioner and her children were constantly tortured by her husband and that ultimately they were driven out from her matrimonial home around February, 2005. Initially she and her children took shelter in her parents' house and finally they shifted at F. D. 467, Flat No.8 Sector 3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. It is further case that the petitioner had to incur the medical expenditure of Rs.70,000/ - for treatment of her daughter Barsha but her husband did not pay anything to meet said medical expenses. It is her case that though she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband but she did not proceed with the same. It is her further case that her husband is a supplier to the jute mills including National Jute Mill Corporation. Her husband has also a transport business under the name and style Kanchan Transport. He has a monthly income of Rs.2 lakhs and odd. He has immovable properties and runs several companies in the name and style S. S. Rungta, Sudarshan Rungta and S. S. Rungta and Company. It is her further case that her husband received 2.5 crores from the National Jute Mill Corporation on account of business transactions and also have several investments in L. I. C. policies, P. P. F. etc. The petitioner having no income has claimed pendente lite alimony at the rate of Rs.50,000/ - per month for herself, and her children, Rs. 10 lakhs for the marriage of their daughter, Rs.25,000/ - as litigation cost. The husband contested said application by filing written objection denying material allegations of the petition alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was rather driven out from his house by the wife who also took away all household belongings, articles, jewellary etc. and sold out the car. It is his further case that the wife has an earning of Rs.30,000/ - per month and is an income tax payee. He could not run his jute business and that he had no transport business or any other substantial income from any business as alleged. He maintained mediclaim for treatment of his family members and that presently he earns Rs.6,000/ - per month by working in a private firm. In May 2006 he sent a money order of Rs.4,500/ - to the wife but the same returned refused. He prayed for dismissal of the application. After contested hearing learned trial court allowed said application in part directing the husband to pay the wife pendente lite alimony at the rate of Rs.25,000/ - per month from the date of the order and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/ -.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with said order the husband has filed the revisional application (C. O. No.2529 of 2012) alleging that the order impugned was not sustainable in law as learned trial court did not consider that wife had sufficient income and was able to maintain herself whereas the husband is presently not in a position to pay any maintenance to the wife. The wife, on the other hand, has filed the other revisional application (C. O. No.3105 of 2012) alleging that learned trial court failed to take note that the husband was a business man having an income of Rs. 2 lakhs and odd per month and that the amount of maintenance so awarded was disproportionately low.;