Judgment Basudeva Panigrahi, J. Judgment 1. This revision is directed against an order dated 31.7.92 passed in a Matrimonial Suit No. 4/91 by the 8th Additional District Judge, Alipore on an application filed under s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 awarding Rs. 600/- per mensum as temporary alimony and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses to the opposite party. 2. The opposite party Smt. Srabani Saha (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) has filed a Matrimonial Case No. 437/80 in the Court of District Judge, 24 Parganas South against this petitioner (for convenience be called as defendant) for dissolution of marriage under s. 13 (1)(a) and s. 33 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, inter alia, filed an application claiming temporary alimony @ 2000/- per mensum towards her maintenance and Rs. 4000/- for her litigation expenses. 3. It is averred in the plaint that both parties are Hindus and are governed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was solemnized on 28th July, 1987 at Somnath Hall Calcutta according to usual Hindu rites and Customs. It was also followed by consummation of marriage on 30th July, 1987. Since then, both parties continued to live as husband and wife but the cordial relationship between them could not last long. There was frequent bickering and misunderstanding. When the position had reached an irreversible stage, the plaintiff had no other alternative than to come back to her parental abode. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant had neglected her as a result of which it became impossible for the latter to live with him. Therefore, she has filed this case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. The plaintiff further asserted that her husband was serving as a Marine Engineer in the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. getting decent salary of about 10,000/- per month. It seems that he had taken voluntary retirement from his service to seek his better fortune for earning more money in some new business adventures. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant is at present earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. It seems that he had taken voluntary retirement from his service to seek his better fortune for earning more money in some new business adventures. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant is at present earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. The defendant on the other hand refuted the plaint allegations and, inter alia, alleged that it is indubitably true that for some time he was working as a Marine Engineer in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. but due to family dispute he had to quit the job and has taken shelter with his parents and brothers. He has no independent source of income and, thus, depends for his livelihood on his brother. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff is serving as a Lady Data Entry Operator in MIS, Bhawani Bhawan, Alipore drawing Rs. 2400/- approximately. Since she is able to maintain herself out of her own income, he has no obligation to pay further amount toward temporary alimony and litigation expenses. It is further indicated that since she voluntarily withdraw herself from the company of the defendant, the later has no legal or moral obligation to pay maintenance. With these avertments he pleaded dismissal of the petition filed by her. The defendant filed another application under s. 24 claiming maintenance from the plaintiff. Both the petitions were heard analogously by the Court below and the petition filed by the husband was, however, dismissed and temporary alimony @ Rs. 600/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/- was awarded against the defendant. Being aggrieved by the said order he has preferred this revision. 6. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, critically placed the order of the learned Additional District Judge and submitted that the Court below has committed gross illegality in not taking the income earned by the plaintiff. He highlighted there is enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff was working in the Computer Establishment at DVC Office drawing more than 1250/- per month. This aspect of the case could not properly be appreciated by the Court below while assessing the amount of alimony pendente lite against the present petitioner. He has taken us through the deposition of Dr. Bhattacharjee. It is doubtless true that Dr. This aspect of the case could not properly be appreciated by the Court below while assessing the amount of alimony pendente lite against the present petitioner. He has taken us through the deposition of Dr. Bhattacharjee. It is doubtless true that Dr. Bhattacharjee has stated in evidence that two Computer Assistants were engaged by the firm and each of them is paid at Rs. 1250/- per month. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Saba, submitted in his reply that this amount is not in lieu of salary) of the opposite party as Computer Assistant but is being given as an allowance to keep her engaged to acquire more experties knowledge in the field of Computer Science. He has also taken us through the cross-examination portion of the evidence of Dr. Bhattacharjee which unambigously reveals that the firm has not been paying any amount directly to the Lady Operator. The term of appointment was to expire on 3.9.92. Neither party is able to show any light as to whether the plaintiff is still in service getting the salary of Rs. 1250/per month. At any rate we need not delve deep into such aspects at present inasmuch as the main case is pending before the Court below. 8. Another contention has been advanced by the petitioner that after he did quit the service of the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. he has been suffering servere financial crunch and depending on his relations. Such impertinent and unimpressive submission does not persuade us to hold that an able bodied, educated officer leaving lucrative service at the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Bombay will come back to Calcutta and idle away his time depending on the mercy of others. However, there is no indication given by the petitioner about his retirement benefits accrued while leaving his job. Had this aspects been highlighted by the petitioner it could have been easier for the Court below to fix up the amount of maintenance payable by him. This fact is within the special knowledge of the husband defendant and non-disclosure of such material fact would certainly amount to drawing an inference that he must have got a seizable amount by which he could earn not less than Rs. 10,000/- per month. 9. This fact is within the special knowledge of the husband defendant and non-disclosure of such material fact would certainly amount to drawing an inference that he must have got a seizable amount by which he could earn not less than Rs. 10,000/- per month. 9. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. There is no inflexible rule or rigid formula on the basis of which the amount of maintenance could be assessed. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. While determining the quantum of maintenance the Court has to bear in mind the social statuts of the parties, the economic viability and the family back-ground. Ordinarily, such fixation of amount should not exceed one fifth of the husband's average net income for three years preceding the date of the order. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner was getting substantial amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month working as a Marine Engineer and also the family back-ground of the parties, the Court below has fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of 600/- per month. Assuming for a moment that the wife has been earning Rs. 1250/- per month and her income is included with the income of the petitioner and one-fifth of the gross amount is payable to the wife for her interim maintenance, it also does not exceed the amount awarded by the Court below. 10. Considering the case from any angle it does not appear to us that the Learned Court below has committed any illegality in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/ - to the opposite party and awarding) Rs. 1000/- towards the litigation expenses. A Bench decision reported in AIR 1969, Orissa at page 12 in the case of Sushila Devi vs. Dhami Ram may be referred to in the present context. "There is no doubt that the wife is entitled to certain amount of maintenance pendent lite. But the question is what should be the reasonable amount? As for maintenance pendente lite, courts generally allow at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions. "There is no doubt that the wife is entitled to certain amount of maintenance pendent lite. But the question is what should be the reasonable amount? As for maintenance pendente lite, courts generally allow at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one fifth the net income. Under the Hindu Marriage Act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband. As regards litigation expenses it should be reasonable: 11. Similar is the view of this High Court too. (Smt. Rina Sen vs. Alok Kumar Sen to which one of us Mr. Mukherjee (J) was a party. Prior to filling of the case, the plaintiff has instituted another proceeding under s. 125 of the Code or Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the present petitioner. There is no denial of the fact that such proceeding was ultimately pursued up to this Court where award of maintenance at the rate of 400/- against the present petitions has been confirmed. On a careful cognization of the impugned order, it is found that the trial Judge, while awarding the interim maintenance has not considered the order passed in s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. proceeding. We make it clear that while making payment pursuant to this order, if any payment is made in accordance with the order under s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such amount shall be adjusted towards the amount payable by the petitioner. 12. In the result we find that the order does not suffer from any vulnerability and accordingly we dismiss the revision but direct the parties to bear their own costs. The opposite party is entitled to interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month from the date of filing of application since 2.4.91, besides cost of litigation Rs. 1000/-As regards the arrear alimony from 2.4.91 the petitioner is directed to clear up the same in 12 equal monthly instalments in addition to current month's alimony. All the payments be made by the husband petitioner by M.O. after deducting the M.O. Commission. If the petitioner failed to pay two consecutive instalments of arrear maintenance, the opposite party shall be at liberty to realise the entire amount from the petitioner by appropriate execution proceedings. All the payments be made by the husband petitioner by M.O. after deducting the M.O. Commission. If the petitioner failed to pay two consecutive instalments of arrear maintenance, the opposite party shall be at liberty to realise the entire amount from the petitioner by appropriate execution proceedings. Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J.: I agree. Application dismissed.