IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the income of the parties and the capability of the respondent to support herself and her child in determining the alimony pendente lite.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J

1. The revisional application is in assailment of an order date May 12, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Darjeeling in Misc Case No. 4 of 2014 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2013.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant proceeding, in an epitome, is that the revisionist/petitioner was employed as a primary school teacher on temporary basis, getting a consolidated pay of less than Rs. 15,000/-per mensem.

3. The revisionist was married to the Opposite Party on April 14, 2008 according to Hindu customs and rites and a male child was born out of the aforesaid wedlock on December 20, 2009. While in such matrimony, the respondent left the house of the revisionist on and from December 23, 2010 without any justifiable reasons and deserted the petitioner.

4. Since the respondent voluntarily withdrew from the society of the petitioner and deserted him, the petitioner/ revisionist filed a suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of learned District Judge, Darjeeling, seeking a decree of divorce which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2013.

5. The respondent contested the said suit by filing written objection/statement. Evidence was led by the parties in the said proceeding. During the pendency of such proceeding, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Such application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated May 12, 2015 directing the petitioner/ revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite to the respondent with effect from February 21, 2013 i.e. the date of filing of Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2013 until disposal of the Matrimonial Suit. In addition, the revisionist was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent towards litigation costs. The revisionist was directed to pay the arrears of the monthly alimony pendente lite, to the respondent, amounting to Rs. 2,60,000/ in ten equal monthly instalments of Rs. 26,000/- each.

7. At the same time, the original Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2013 was also disposed of on the self same day i.e. May 12, 2015 decreeing the suit in favour of the revisionist. By the said decree, the marriage tie between the revisionist and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

8. It is the case of the revisionist that the learned trial Court passed the impugned order without appreciating the true perspective of the facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the income of the revisionist. The learned trial court also overlooked the fact that the revisionist was under obligation to maintain his aged mother. According to the revisionist, the impugned order, given the status and income of the petitioner, is incapable of performance.

9. The revisionist has also stated that since the date of the decree of divorce, the petitioner has been regularly depositing a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month in the bank account of the respondent wife. Under such circumstances, the impugned order directing payment of alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month is bad, illegal, unauthorized and without jurisdiction.

10. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the same is based on conjectures and surmises having no foundational basis. The impugned order was passed absolutely without considering the income of the petitioner which is incapable of performance. The learned trial court was not justified in placing more reliance on the statement on affidavit vis-a-vis verified statement. Moreover, the original Matrimonial suit was disposed of within a span of 2 years and taking into account the nature of the litigation as well as period spent in disposing the same, the cost of litigation assessed at Rs. 30,000/- is too exorbitant.

11. Hence, by filing the instant revisional application, the revisionist/husband has pray