The amount of interim maintenance is claimed or calculated or awarded on the basis of the costs for maintaining the basic standard of living and not on the basis of the earning of the opposite party.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.:

Both these revisional applications are taken up for hearing at a time being interlinked with each other.

2. In the revisional application bearing No. 2614 of 2015 the wife petitioner has challenged the quantum of the pendente lite alimony passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, at Alipore mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in its proper perspectives. The wife petitioner also submitted that the income of the opposite party husband has not been properly appreciated and as a result only a paltry sum has been awarded. So she has prayed for enhancement of the amount so awarded by the Learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, at Alipore.

3. In C.O. No. 2948 of 2015 the petitioner husband has also challenged the same order dated 15th June, 2015, contending inter alia that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the position of law so far as the arrear is concerned. He categorically submitted that since November 2004, the petitioner husband voluntarily started paying Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent wife, who had regularly accepted the same. Divorce suit was filed in 2004. Therefore, he wanted to show his bona fide to pay maintenance to his wife.

4. In course of hearing of the revisional application bearing No. 2614 of 2015 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that before the learned Court below she had filed affidavit-in-chief 11.02.2009 wherein she has mentioned that the opposite party is the Chief Engineer of Doordarshan and had been earning salary to the extent of Rs.80,000/- per month and this apart he had an income about Rs.1,50,000/- from his landed properties and after his retirement he would get nearly Rs.80 lakhs as his retiral benefit. Considering the income of her husband she has prayed for Rs.40,000/- as alimony pendente lite and Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses but the learned Court below did not consider the said aspects. According to him, income of the husband has to be shown by the husband himself and not by the petitioner wife. Considering the status of the petitioner wife, she deserves that amount.

5. Challenging the said contention of the petitioner wife, the learned Counsel Mr. Dipak Kr. Prahladka contended that matrimonial suit was filed in 2004 and since then he had been voluntarily paying Rs.3000/- which has been accepted without any objection by the petitioner wife. He further stated that in the meantime he is now retired and he received a total amount of Rs.27,62,681/- being his retirement benefits and he has been earning pension at the rate of Rs.37,347/- only per month. He further contended that a two room flat was purchased by him measuring about 750 square ft. by taking loan and the present petitioner wife and his son have been residing there. He also contended that his son is well established now. The petitioner wife has no other liability except her food and other bare necessities. So he has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference.

6. He further argued that the matrimonial suit was supposed to be disposed within two months from the date of filing as per Family Court Act but that has not been done. On the contrary the suit is being protracted for more than 10 years and during this period he had all along paid Rs.3,000/- per month, which was accepted by the respondent.

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner wife has contended that alimony pendente lite should be given from the date of application and enhanced maintenance that has to be also given effect to from that date. In support of his contention he has referred to a decision reported in (2002) 2 W.B.L.R. 182, (Smt. Poushali Pal –Vs.- Sri Gautam Pal). I have gone through the said judgment but the factual aspects of that case is substantially different from the present one on the ground that