INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the present petitioner who is the husband of the opposite party has assailed the order dated 13/11/2013 as passed in Misc. case 2 of 2013 arising out of MAT Suit no. 10 of 2012, now pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Durgapur, District Burdwan.
(2.) HEARD the learned advocates of the parties. It is the submission of Ms. Rita Patra on behalf of the petitioner that the order of granting alimony to the tune of Rs.6000/ - break up being Rs.4000/ - for the wife (op) and Rs.2000/ - to her son is undoubtedly heavy for a husband who has no income. It is her further submission that the husband is totally dependent upon the pensionary benefit of his father. It is also her submission that the husband used to work in a factory in Durgapur and used to get Rs.6000/ - odd, but unfortunately his service was terminated. Learned advocate took me to Annexure P -4 in support of this claim.
(3.) THUS , it is her submission that the order passed in that Misc. case be totally rejected. It has also been claimed that the present opposite party is running one Beauty Parlour and earns about Rs.4000/ - per month from there. In counter to all these, it is the submission of Mr. Manish Sen by taking me to the certified copy of the impugned order wherein the learned trial Court proceeded to write "The Respondent/husband does not deny in the objection specifically that he is not a practicing doctor". Thus, he tried to convince this Court that there is no denial from the side of the wife that the present petitioner is a practicing doctor. It is his further submission that Rs.6000/ - per month is very modest amount, and as such, the order passed by the learned Court below is to be affirmed.;