JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The instant application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against the order dated February 8, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 4th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2005 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 31 of 2005.

2. By the order impugned, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,97,687/- towards the arrear alimony till January 2021 less the amount already paid. The husband was further directed to pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.11,000/-per month till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved, the husband preferred the instant Civil Order.

3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the husband/petitioner herein contends that the learned Trial Judge directed the husband to pay 1/3rd of the retirement benefit by totally misinterpreting the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CO 768 of 2018. He further submits that the application for enhancement of alimony was filed sometimes in the month of September 2010 but the learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned, directed the husband to pay the enhanced maintenance with effect from January 2010. He contends that the learned Trial Judge calculated the arrear maintenance for the period from January 2010 to January 2016 at the rate of 1/3rd of the gross salary without appreciating that alimony is to be calculated on the net salary after allowing the admissible deductions from the gross salary. He submits that the amount of alimony calculated for the period from February 2016 is also excessive.

4. Per contra, Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that the learned Trial Judge was justified in directing the husband to pay 1/3rd of the retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits as a coordinate Bench of this Court in CO 768 of 2018 already fixed the rate at which the husband has to pay maintenance. He further submits that the husband cannot now take the plea that maintenance is to be calculated on 1/3rd of the net salary and not on gross salary as such issue has already been settled by this Court in the earlier Civil Orders. He submits that the learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration the salary, pension as well as the retiremental benefits received by the husband directed the husband to pay maintenance both current as well as arrears in tune with the directions passed in the earlier Civil Orders. Thus, according to Mr. Karmakar, the order impugned calls for no interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record.

6. This case has a chequered history. On an application filed by the wife under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of alimony pendente lite, the learned Trial Judge by an order dated August 29, 2017 held that the wife will get Rs.4,000/- per month as enhanced maintenance pendente lite with effect from April 2014 after adjustment with maintenance award passed in other cases between the same parties. The wife challenged the said order by filing CO No. 768 of 2018 which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench on February 18, 2019 by setting aside the impugned order. The co-ordinate Bench directed the learned Judge of the Court below to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the settled principles of grant of maintenance which is roughly 1/3rd of the salary amount. The learned Judge was further directed to take into consideration for the purpose of calculation of arrears of maintenance payable to the wife on and from year 2010 along with all revisions until January 31, 2016 till such time the husband superannuated from service. The learned Judge was further directed to recalculate the maintenance amount both in arrears as well as the current enhanceable of maintenance amount payable on the basis of the pension and retirement benefits received including gratuity an