JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no. 37 dated 11.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 5 of 2015 under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 216 of 2014, present application being CO 1952 of 2016 and CO 1650 of 2016 preferred against self-same order. CO 1952 of 2016 has been preferred by the wife whereas CO 1650 of 2016 by the husband.

2. The background of the case is husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT against the present wife/petitioner before the learned District Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur which was registered as aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 216 of 2014.

3. In the said suit, the wife/opposite party filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1955 which is registered as Misc. Judicial Case No. 5 of 2015. Subsequently, both Matrimonial Suit No. 216 of 2014 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 5 of 2015 pending before the learned District Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur were transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Balurghat for disposal.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu customs and rites on 20.01.2014. The wife/opposite party alleged that during her stay at her matrimonial house, she was subjected to torture and she was compelled to abort pregnancy and ultimately, father of the petitioner was compelled to take her back to her paternal home on 08.5.2014. Subsequently, she came back to resume matrimonial tie but she was ultimately driven out from matrimonial home on 01.7.2014 and since then she is residing at her father’s house at Balurghat. The husband/opposite party denied all such allegations.

5. In the aforesaid proceeding being Misc. Judicial Case No. 5 of 2015, the wife/petitioner had prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.

6. Learned court below while disposing the said application was pleased to grant maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.9,000/- per month and Rs.35,000/- in lumpsum towards litigation cost to the petitioner to be paid by the opposite party from the date of passing of the order.

7. Being aggrieved by that order, the revisional application being No. 1650 of 2016 has been preferred by the husband for setting aside the order. According to the petitioner/husband, the said amount is unjustified and bad in law.

8. On the other hand, CO 1952 of 2016 has been preferred by the wife/petitioner being aggrieved by the selfsame order seeking direction for grant of pendente lite maintenance from the date of filing of the application instead of from the date of order. In terms of the order passed by this court, both the parties have filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities.

9. From the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the husband/applicant, it appears that the monthly gross pay of the husband/applicant is Rs.53,285/- and his net income is Rs.38,085/- per month. The husband/applicant towards his liability has mentioned that his mother is a cancer patient and she was treated at Bombay Tata Cancer Hospital and more than five lakhs had already been expended and now due to shortage of money she has been taking chemo in Calcutta Hospital and husband is paying entire costs of treatment.

10. The wife/applicant has also filed her statement of assets and liabilities wherein she has mentioned that her monthly expenditure is about Rs.20,000/- and she is not getti