NILADRI SEKHAR BASU Vs. SMT. SARMISTHA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No. 46 dated April 19, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2005 arising out of a Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2003. The parties to this application were married according to Hindu Customs and Rites on November 15, 1985 and thereafter they lived together and two daughters were born in the wedlock but the relationship between the two became strained and the wife filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in 1998. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed on the prayer of the wife. Thereafter, in 2003, the wife filed another matrimonial proceeding being Matrimonial suit No. 27 of 2003 before the learned District Judge at Alipore for dissolution of marriage and in that suit she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming pendente lite alimony and litigation costs. On the basis of the materials -on -record, the learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order, granted alimony at the rate of Rs. 9,000/ -per month for the three and litigation costs of Rs. 2,500/ -. Being aggrieved by such order, the husband has filed this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(2.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials -on -record, I find that the marriage between the two is not in dispute. At present it is not in dispute that the wife is living separately with her two daughters and the eldest daughter is residing at Bangalore and doing higher studies. The youngest daughter is residing with the mother in Kolkata and she is a student of Loretto High School. While granting alimony and the litigation costs, the learned Trial Judge did not accept the contention of the husband that his monthly income is to the tune of Rs. 9,000/ - per month. He is relied on the Income Tax Return submitted by the husband showing the actual income of the husband as Rs. 1,71,000/ - only per annum.

(3.) MR . Siblal Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Trial Judge has not considered this paper properly but has considered the income tax return filed by the husband/petitioner herein.