SUTAPA PAUL ALIAS SUTAPA KARMAKAR Vs. PRANJAL KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this revisional application is the order dated March 01, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No. 3125 of 2015, arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 100 of 2009.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revisional application are that the petitioner is the wife of the opposite party, the latter filed the matrimonial suit, against the petitioner, before the learned Court below claiming a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the opposite party amended the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit claiming a decree for divorce against the petitioner. Thus, the suit was converted from a suit for restitution of conjugal rights to a suit for divorce. In the suit, the petitioner filed an application, being Misc. Case No. 1 of 2010, under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for alimony pendente lite. In the said application the petitioner prayed a direction against the opposite party to pay her Rs.20,000.00, per month on account of maintenance for herself and her minor child and a further sum of Rs.50,000.00 on account of litigation cost. By order dated Oct. 01, 2012 the learned Court below, disposed of the said Misc. Case No. 1 of 2010 by directing the opposite party to pay alimony pendente lite to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month for herself and Rs.5,000.00 per month for the maintenance of her minor daughter with effect from Jan. 22, 2010. In the year 2015 the petitioner claimed that the income of the opposite party has increased and he is drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs.2,00,000.00. She also alleged that in the meantime, the educational expenses of her minor child has also increased. On these grounds, the petitioner filed a fresh application, being Misc. Case No. 3152 of 2015, before the learned Court below, praying for enhancement of the alimony pendente lite to be paid by the opposite party at least at Rs.40,000.00 per month. She also prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to pay her Rs.50,000.00 on account of litigation cost. The opposite party contested the said application. He also filed written objection to the petitioner's application. In his written objection, the opposite party barely denied that his present monthly income has increased to more than Rs.2,00,000.00 and he did not even disclose his salary slip or any other document to substantiate his present monthly income. By order dated March 1, 2016 the learned Court below disposed of the said Misc. Case No. 3152 of 2015 by directing the opposite party to pay to the petitioner enhanced alimony pendente lite of Rs.15,000.00, per month for herself and Rs.10,000.00, per month for her minor daughter with effect from that date. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated March 01, 2016 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this revisional application.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya strongly contended that when the opposite party did not disclose any document to substantiate his present monthly income, the learned Court below ought to have drawn an adverse inference against him and enhanced the alimony pendente lite for herself and for her minor daughter as prayed for in the application, being Misc. 3152 of 2015. It was urged that in the facts of the present case, the learned Court below committed an error of law in not enhancing the alimony pendente lite to be paid by the opposite party to the petitioner for herself and for her minor daughter at Rs.40,000.00 per month as claimed by the petitioner.