IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that maintenance must reflect the dependent spouse's needs and the paying spouse's actual income, ensuring no destitution occurs post-separation.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

1. Both the revisional applications are taken up together in view of similarities between the parties and the issues involved.

2. Both the parties are aggrieved by an order dated October 9, 2023 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.30 of 2020, by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court at Howrah.

3. By the order impugned, the learned court directed the husband/petitioner in C.O. No.4184 of 2023 to pay maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of the application, within 10th of each succeeding English calendar month, until disposal of the suit. The amount of maintenance pendente lite was awarded on and from the date of the application.

4. Mr. Bardhan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.O. No.4184 of 2023 has challenged the said order on the following grounds:-

(a) The learned court did not take into account the conduct of the wife who kept on filing one application after another under various provisions of law, thereby creating a hindrance in the disposal of the suit.

(b) The learned court took into account the enhanced income of the husband and directed the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid, without appreciating that direction for payment, from the date of the filing of the misc. case, would cause serious prejudice to the husband. Computation of the arrears should be proportionate to the income of the husband during the relevant periods, i.e., from filing of the application for maintenance, to the date of the order. The husband’s income kept varying from time to time.

(c) The enhanced income of the husband should not have been taken into consideration while awarding the maintenance.

5. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the wife and the petitioner in C.O. No.3949 of 2023, submits that the learned court had proceeded on the income disclosed by the husband in his affidavit of assets. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submits that although a letter issued by the employer of the husband had been filed which disclosed base pay of Rs.23,00,000/- per annum, such amount was not taken into consideration. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, going by Mr. Bardhan’s contention, the wife was entitled to much more that Rs. 30,000/- per month as the income increased year after year. The next contention is that the learned court did not allow litigation cost, which was contrary to law.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, it appears to this Court that the learned trial judge relied on the affidavit of assets and calculated the maintenance on the basis thereof. Reliance was not placed on the income of Rs.23,00,000/- per annum. The first contention of Mr. Bardhan that maintenance should have been determined on the basis of the income of the husband at the time of filing of the application for maintenance pendente lite, and not on the basis of the income of the husband later, is not available as the court took into account the income disclosed by the husband.

7. In Rajnesh v. Neha and ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a proceeding for maintenance, both the spouses were required to submit their affidavits of assets. In this case, the husband has disclosed in his affidavit of assets that his income is around Rs.1,36,000/- per month. The law is well settled. It is for the husband to disclose his income as it is within his exclusive knowledge.

8. The contention that the learned trial court was required to compute the arrears by taking into account the proportionate income of the husband during the pendency of the proceedings, is not backed by any law. Such suggestion of Mr. Bardhan is farfetched. The affidavit of assets of the husband has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial judge, based on the decision of Rajnesh (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are quoted below:

“63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, wher