SWAPAN KUMAR DAS Vs. SOMA DAS SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional petition the husband, being the petitioner, has impugned an order dated 5.9.1992 of Miscellaneous Case No. 11/92, whereby me learned Additional District Judge at Howrah while disposing of a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granted a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 450/- for his wife and Rupees 300/- for his minor daughter as also consolidated litigation costs of Rs. 750/-. The arrear amount of maintenance allowance for the period from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 23.3.1992 upto August, 1992 was reckoned at Rs. 3,888 /-. The arrear amount of maintenance being 3,888/- together with the litigation cost of Rs. 750/- (the total being 4,638/-) was directed to be paid in six equal instalments of Rs. 773/- along with the current maintenance allowance of Rs. 750/-. The relevant Matrimonial Suit No. 23/91 had been filed by the wife/O.P. in the Court of the District Judge at Howrah under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for judicial separation and the suit was, thereupon, transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Howrah where an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed praying an alimony pendente life at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. for the wife and Rs. 500/- p.m. for her daughter, then aged about three years.

(2.) On behalf of the husband/petitioner it has been contended that the quantum of alimony as fixed by the impugned order was highly excessive, oppressive and unreasonable. It was further urged that the Court below, without taking into consideration of all the relevant facts, has passed a non-speaking order, and, further, that, in no case, the quantum of alimony should exceed 1 /5th the net take home salary of the husband.

(3.) On the very face of the impugned order I find that the Court below has duly considered the pay-slip produced by the husband/petitioner himself, which revealed that his total salary in the month of May, 1992 was Rs. 2,8357- as against which he was paid Rs. 1,804/- as his take-home salary after certain deductions including refund of loan. While taking into account the extent of the salary, the Court below did take notice of the fact that the pay slip as produced before him did not mention about the latest position of the payment of salary and the refund of loan at the time when the impugned order was being passed. It was further taken notice of the fact that the wife O.P. had no separate income of her own and that she was absolutely dependent upon her husband. In view of such discussions of the relevant facts having been made in the impugned order, I am unable to record my concurrence to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was not speaking one.