IMPORTANT POINT
The husband is required to disclose his actual income, and the maintenance amount should be commensurate with the parties' prior standard of living.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated July 18, 2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur, in J. Misc. Case No.62 of 2022. The J. Misc. Case arose out of Matrimonial Suit No.649 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court disposed of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.1 lakh per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the application till the date of disposal of the matrimonial proceedings. The amount was directed to be transmitted directly to the bank account of the opposite party/wife. The opposite party/wife was directed to open such account and intimate the details to the petitioner/husband through her learned Advocate within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. The amount was directed to be paid within 10th of each month for which the same fell due, with effect from the month of August, 2023. The arrear maintenance from the date of filing of the application till July 2023, was directed to be deposited in the bank account of the opposite party/wife in 12 equal monthly instalments along with the current maintenance on and from August 2023. The school fees of the child on and from the next academic session was further directed to be paid. The amount of litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/-was also directed to be deposited in the bank account of the opposite party/wife in five equal monthly instalments along with current maintenance.

3. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/husband had assailed the order on the following grounds :-

(A) The learned court failed to take into consideration the income tax return of the husband and the income disclosed therein.

(B) The amount of maintenance awarded was disproportionately high.

(C) The income of the wife was not considered.

(E) The break-up of the expenses of the child and the wife had not been indicated.

(F) Apart from a direction to pay Rs.1 lakh, further direction to pay all the school fees etc., was not only exorbitant but unreasonable.

(G) The learned court miscalculated the expected monthly expenses of the child, who was a student of class-V.

(H) The requirement of the opposite party to enable her to maintain a decent life was over emphazied.

(I) The evidence on record would clearly indicate that the income of the petitioner/husband would not justify the payment Rs.1 lakh per month as maintenance pendente lite.

(J) The learned court erred in holding that the income tax return did not disclose the actual income of the husband.

(K) The court proceeded on surmise and conjecture and there was no evidence to justify the findings in respect to the petitioner’s income.

(L) If the learned court was of the view that Rs.1 lakh would be a substantial amount for the wife and the child, the direction to pay the amount and further direction to pay additional school expenses and tuition fees without quantifying the same, were contrary to the observation of the learned court.

(M) The learned court assumed that as the company of the petitioner had an annual turnover of Rs.1.5 crores, the financial position of the petitioner was strong enough to pay such an inflated amount as maintenance pendente lite.

(N) That the development business of the petitioner was not the sole proprietorship of the petitioner, but a family business and the brothers of the petitioners also had a substantial share in the income.

(O) The learned court ought to have allowed adjustment of the amount which had already been paid towards the educational expenses of the child as tuition fees and session fees etc. Although, the learned court relied heavily on the social status of the parties and held that determination of the quantum of maintenance pendente lite should be at par with the standard of living of the parties enjoyed before their estrangement, Rs.1 lakh would not be required by