S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) IN this revisional petition the husband, being the petitioner, has impugned an order dated 5. 9. 1992 of Miscellaneous Case No. 11/92, whereby me learned Additional District Judge at Howrah while disposing of a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granted a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 450/- for his wife and Rupees 300/- for his minor daughter as also consolidated litigation costs of Rs. 750/ -. The arrear amount of maintenance allowance for the period from the date of filing of the petition i. e. , 23. 3. 1992 upto August, 1992 was reckoned at Rs. 3,888 / -. The arrear amount of maintenance being 3,888/- together with the litigation cost of Rs. 750/- (the total being 4,638/-) was directed to be paid in six equal instalments of Rs. 773/- along with the current maintenance allowance of Rs. 750/ -. The relevant Matrimonial Suit No. 23/91 had been filed by the wife/o. P. in the Court of the District Judge at Howrah under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for judicial separation and the suit was, thereupon, transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Howrah where an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed praying an alimony pendente life at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. for the wife and Rs. 500/- p. m. for her daughter, then aged about three years. ( 2 ) ON behalf of the husband/petitioner it has been contended that the quantum of alimony as fixed by the impugned order was highly excessive, oppressive and unreasonable. It was further urged that the Court below, without taking into consideration of all the relevant facts, has passed a non-speaking order, and, further, that, in no case, the quantum of alimony should exceed 1 /5th the net take home salary of the husband. ( 3 ) ON the very face of the impugned order I find that the Court below has duly considered the pay-slip produced by the husband/petitioner himself, which revealed that his total salary in the month of May, 1992 was Rs. 2,8357- as against which he was paid Rs. 1,804/- as his take-home salary after certain deductions including refund of loan. 2,8357- as against which he was paid Rs. 1,804/- as his take-home salary after certain deductions including refund of loan. While taking into account the extent of the salary, the Court below did take notice of the fact that the pay slip as produced before him did not mention about the latest position of the payment of salary and the refund of loan at the time when the impugned order was being passed. It was further taken notice of the fact that the wife O. P. had no separate income of her own and that she was absolutely dependent upon her husband. In view of such discussions of the relevant facts having been made in the impugned order, I am unable to record my concurrence to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was not speaking one. ( 4 ) SINCE the net payment of salary as per the pay slip was to the tune of Rs. 1,804/- only it was very emphatically urged before me that the alimony to the tune of Rs. 750/- as granted by the Court below was beyond 1 /5th of the aforesaid net payment of the salary. Here it would be apposite to refer to a Division Bench Decision of this Court, reported in II (1994) DMC 525 (DB), Smt. Rina Sen v. Aloke Kumar Sen, wherein it has been pertinently observed that though under Section 36 of the Divorce Act, 1869 and under Section 39 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 maintenance pendente life could be awarded to the extent of l/5th of the husband's net monthly average income, there was no such ceiling fixed in the case of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the fixation of alimony in the case of Hindu Marriage Act, was to be guided by the wide discretion vested by the statute on the Court itself. In this view of the matter, it was not open for the husband /petitioner to seek an embargo or an arithmetical limit on the maintenance allowance of his wife, who was living separate from her husband with a minor growing child. In this view of the matter, it was not open for the husband /petitioner to seek an embargo or an arithmetical limit on the maintenance allowance of his wife, who was living separate from her husband with a minor growing child. ( 5 ) EVEN, turning attention to the discretion exercised by the Court below towards the quantum of alimony, it has transpired at the time of hearing of the present revisional petition that the total salary of the petitioner/husband in the month of December, 1994 has gone up to Rs. 4;027/- which was only Rs. 2835/- in the month of May, 1992 (as pointed out to the Court below ). This was for the simple reason of annual increment in the pay scale and the enhanced rate of deamess allowance. The take home salary in the month of December, 1994 was to the tune of Rs. 2,114 after deductions on various items. Be that as it may, I find no manner of doubt about the take home salary of the petitioner/husband being around Rs. 2/000/- p. m. In this view of the matter, I could be very well convinced that the monthly maintenance as granted by the Court below to the tune ofrs. 450/- for the wife and Rupees 300/- for the minor daughter would simple enable her to pull on her livelihood with Rs. 25/- per day for herself and her minor child. I do not think such meagre amount could be taken as excessive or oppressive upon the husband, who had his total monthly salary of about Rs. 4,000/- and was in a position to draw the net salary of about Rs. 2,000/ -. ( 6 ) AS a compassionate ground, it was urged on behalf of the husband/ petitioner that he had to maintain his old and ailing father as also an unmarried sister. Even assuming this aspect of the case to be true I am sure, this was hardly valid ground to call upon any curtailment in the meagre maintenance allowance made available to the wife and the child as noticed in the preceding paragraph. ( 7 ) AT the close of my discussion, it was, however, noticeable that the husband / petitioner has fallen in arrears for non-payment of the alimony for long. In this regard, the instalment as fixed by the Court below was to the tune of Rs. ( 7 ) AT the close of my discussion, it was, however, noticeable that the husband / petitioner has fallen in arrears for non-payment of the alimony for long. In this regard, the instalment as fixed by the Court below was to the tune of Rs. 773 / - each month so as to liquidate the arrear amount. That being as such, the petitioner/ husband may have to part with more than half amount of his take-home monthly salary. So far the amount of the arrear was concerned, no one can help the situation except directing that the arrear must be liquidated but some concession may be given to the husband/petitioner by reducing the amount of each instalment and increasing the number of instalments and, therefore, I prefer to reduce the amount of each instalment from Rs. 773/- to Rs. 500/- per month to be paid along with the current alimony till the entire amount of the arrear is liquidated. The Trial Court, would be entitled to pass such further direction as may be deemed just and proper with regard to the liquidation of the arrear amount with the modification in the order as indicated above. ( 8 ) IN the premises, the revisional petition is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified in the term as indicated above. There shall be no order as to further costs. The hearing of the Matrimonial Suit be expedited and, preferably, be disposed of within two months from the communication of this order.