D/L.18.

February 16, 2026.

.

MNS FA No. 121 of 2024 +

CAN 2 of 2025 Sri Ratan Kumar Kundu Vs.

Smt. Sanchita Kundu Ms. Munmun Tewary, Mrs. Sohini Adhikary, Mr. Gourav Sarkar … for the appellant.

Mr. Mani Sankar Chattopadhyay, Ms. Shalini Singh …for the respondent.

Re : CAN 2 of 2025 (alimony)

1. CAN 2 of 2025 is an application for alimony pendente lite filed by the respondent/petitioner/wife.

2. The present appeal arises at the behest of the appellant/husband against the dismissal of the appellant’s suit for divorce.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner/wife submits that alimony to the tune of at least Rs. 40,000/- per month should be granted, since the appellant/husband has suppressed his monthly income in the range of Rs.

80,000/- per month when he was in service.

4. It is submitted that although recently the appellant/husband has retired from service, he got a lumpsum amount as retiral benefit at the time of his superannuation. Moreover, the husband has a regular pensionary income per month.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/wife further points out that although the son of the parties has attained majority, he is taking his management and computer application courses, the expenses for which has to be borne by the respondent/wife from the pocket of her father, who is aged about eighty years.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the husband’s income has now been confined to his monthly pension to the tune of about Rs. 26,000/- per month.

7. As such, it is submitted that the alimony should be to the tune of Rs. 5,000-6,000/- per month at best.

8. We take note of the fact that while disposing of the previous application for modification filed by the husband, in our order dated January 27, 2026, we had recorded initially that the husband had not disclosed the amount obtained by him at the time of his superannuation. Subsequently, upon the direction of the Court, the husband was compelled to disclose that he had received a lumpsum amount of Rs. 21,37,760/- at the time of his retirement. Moreover, he is receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 25,578/-.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposes such contention of the appellant/husband and submits that the husband obtained a higher pensionary benefit at the time of his retirement, which has not been disclosed before this Court.

10. Be that as it may, since the husband has not clearly disclosed as to how he has invested the lumpsum quantum of Rs. 21,37,760/-, which he obtained at the time of his retirement, and what is his regular income from such investments, if any, the Court has to resort to reasonable guesswork, which is permitted in law in circumstances of such suppression.

11. In such view of the matter, we take into account the fact that the husband obtained a lumpsum amount of Rs.21,37,760/- at the time of his retirement and earns a monthly pension of Rs. 25,578/- as well as the fact that the respondent/wife does not have any income of her own and that the son of the parties, although attained majority by now, has huge educational expenses, which is being borne by the respondent/wife, thus bringing such expenditure also within the fold of the requirement of the respondent/wife.

12. Keeping on balance the above factors, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/husband should be directed to pay a monthly amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent/wife to meet the latter’s expenses, commensurate with the status and lifestyle of the appellant/husband.

13. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed without any order as to costs, thereby directing the appellant/husband to pay alimony to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The first of the current alimony payments at that rate shall be made by the appellant/husband by March 15, 2026, for the month of March, 2026, and thereafter by the fifteenth day of each succeeding month for such current month.

14. The arrears of alimony from the date of filing of CAN 2 of 2025, that