The husband is responsible for bearing the expenses of the son's commute to school. The wife is entitled to enhancement of alimony and maintenance due to the husband's undisclosed income and the wife's insufficient income. The wife can claim litigation costs for both suits due to the expenses involved. The court clarified that the litigation costs would be consolidated for both suits and adjusted for the amount already awarded in the divorce suit.

1. ADMITTEDLY the parties are married couple. Matrimonial dispute arose between them. Husband filed a suit for divorce against the wife. Wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal right. Both the suits are being tried analogously.

2. ADMITTEDLY the parties have two children; one daughter and a son. The daughter is major. The minor son is a school going child. It is also an admitted fact that the parties are living separately. The wife is staying in the matrimonial home at 65, South-end Park, Kolkata-29. Minor son is staying with her. Though the major daughter stays in the said premises but she is staying separately in a separate mess.

Husband stays at a premises at Salt Lake. Husband is a businessman having several businesses. The wife was a director of the husbands company so long as the cordial relationship was maintained between them. The wife however ceased to be a director of the husbands company when the cordial matrimonial relationship had broken down. As a result, the wifes income from the said business on account of her directorship therein was stopped. However the wife being a shareholder of the husbands business receives some dividend from the husbands business. The wife has also some income from bank interest out of the savings made by her husband under different schemes. There is nothing on record to show that the wife has any independent source of income otherwise. Whatever bank interest she is receiving from different deposits were all deposited by the husband in the name of wife.

3. NEITHER the husband has disclosed his actual income out of his various businesses nor the wife has disclosed the actual money she is receiving either on account of dividend or on account of bank interest. Fact remains that the husband has substantial income from his different businesses. He has various properties here and there within and beyond the State. He also invested substantial amount in different bank accounts standing in the name of the wife. Even the wife claims that she is also not aware of the deposits and/or investment made by her husband in her name.

4. THE husband stated on oath that he will arrange a car for his son for his going to school from his residence and for his coming back from school to his residence.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court presumes that the husband maintains a very high standard of living and thus the wife and children are also required to be maintained according to the standard of living of the husband/father. As a matter of fact the Learned Trial Judge by his earlier order being No. 26 dated 22nd June, 2006 disposed of the wifes applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.8.000/- per month to the wife for her maintenance pendentilite and further sum of Rs.10,000/- per month on account of the maintenance of the son. The husband was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost. The said order was maintained by this Honble Court. In fact Justice S. P. Talukdar (as His Lordship then was) dismissed both the revisional applications filed by the respective parties challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Learned Trial Judge on the wifes application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. SUBSEQUENTLY, the wife filed three applications in the said suit. In one of those applications, the wife claimed enhancement of her amount of alimony pendentilite. She claimed a further sum of Rs.12,000/- over and above Rs.16,000/- which was directed to be paid by the husband to the wife on account of the wifes alimony pendentilite and for maintenance of the child. It was stated by her in the said application that though the husband assured that he would arrange a motor car for his sons journey to school from his residence and for his coming back to residence from school, but the husband failed to keep the said assurance and as a result