Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are directed against the Order No.50 dated December 23, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.3 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.16 of 2009 thereby granting alimony in favour of the wife and her daughter. Since, both the applications have arisen out of the same order of alimony, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the C.O. No.615 of 2012 is taken up first. C.O. No.615 of 2012:- This application has been preferred by the wife claiming alimony to the tune of Rs.36,940/-only per month for herself and her daughter and a sum of Rs.30,000/-only as litigation costs against her husband. The petitioner has contended that the parties were married on August 4, 1987 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. One daughter was born in the wedlock and the said daughter is now 10 years of age and is a school going student. The petitioner and her daughter are residing in the flat purchased by the husband. She is also enjoying the car purchased by the husband. The husband had stopped looking after the petitioner since the month of December 2008. The petitioner has no independent source of income and she is passing her days hard for providing maintenance for the two. On the other hand, the opposite party is a Marine Engineer and he earns Rs.3 lakh only per month from service. Beside that, he has income from other sources, such as, painting etc. and at present, his monthly income is about Rs.5 lakh only. So, the petitioner has claimed the alimony pendente lite for the amount mentioned above. The husband is contesting the said application contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the two and the birth of a child are admitted facts. The wife and the daughter are residing in the flat purchased by the husband and the husband is now repaying the loan by monthly instalments for the said flat. The wife is also enjoying a car purchased by the husband and thus, the wife is leading a luxurious life. The husband is now out of employment on health ground and at present, he has no source income. The wife is also enjoying a car purchased by the husband and thus, the wife is leading a luxurious life. The husband is now out of employment on health ground and at present, he has no source income. While they resided together, there was a joint account and on two occasions, the wife had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,53,311/-only from the said account without the permission and knowledge of the opposite party. So, such amount will be enough for the wife and daughter to get their livelihood. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/-only per month for the two from the date of filing of the application. The learned Trial Judge has also granted litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-only. He has also directed the husband to pay arrears of alimony by instalments. Being aggrieved, the wife has filed this application for enhancement of the alimony. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the wife has made details of her requirement for alimony pendente lite at page no.s 4 & 5 of her application showing the prayer for a sum of Rs.36,940/-only. The learned Trial Judge has arrived at his findings upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties on the matter of alimony. Previously, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application for alimony by the Order No.27 dated August 13, 2010. Being aggrieved by such order, the husband preferred a civil revision being C.O. No.2892 of 2010. While disposing of the said revision, by the Order dated March 17, 2011, this Bench directed the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the application for alimony within a period of 3 months from date. The husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh only to the wife and such order was complied with. It was also observed that the amount paid, shall be adjusted against the final order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order on the basis of the evidence on record. As noted above, the marriage between the two and the birth of a daughter in the wedlock are admitted facts. It was also observed that the amount paid, shall be adjusted against the final order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order on the basis of the evidence on record. As noted above, the marriage between the two and the birth of a daughter in the wedlock are admitted facts. It is also an admitted fact that the daughter is now a student of Class-VIII of Mahadevi Birla Girls Higher Secondary School, Kolkata. The wife had to incur expenses for the education of the child as noted at page no.s 4 & 5 of the said application. Beside that, the wife has contended that she is now suffering from breast cancer and she had to expend a sum of Rs.94,442/-only for operation and chemotherapy and as such, she requires constant medical treatment. She has filed papers in support of such contention and so, there is no ground to disbelieve in such contention. It is also not in dispute that the husband is a Marine Engineer and that he was employed in the Shipping Corporation of India and later, he joined some other private companies. Admittedly, the parties have a joint account with the bank and the wife withdrew certain money, but, that too, when there was a good relationship between the two. By filing a counter objection, the wife has denied that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,53,311/-only. She has contended that she signed the cheques at the request of the husband and in fact, the husband had withdrawn the money from the said bank and she merely signed on the cheques. Moreover, she signed cheques for withdrawal of money for maintenance while the husband was on voyage. She has stated that without the consent of her husband, she did not withdraw any money from the bank. Such statement of the wife being not specifically denied by the husband, is believable. Thereafter, the husband filed the said matrimonial suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly, the husband looked after his family, that is, the wife and the daughter and he provided for maintenance of his family upto December 2008. Thereafter, the husband did not provide any financial help to the wife and the daughter. The wife has stated in clear words that she has no independent source of income of her own. Admittedly, the husband looked after his family, that is, the wife and the daughter and he provided for maintenance of his family upto December 2008. Thereafter, the husband did not provide any financial help to the wife and the daughter. The wife has stated in clear words that she has no independent source of income of her own. The petitioner has claimed that she requires Rs.10,000/-only per month for her medical treatment beside the alimony for other purposes, such as, food, clothing, etc. She has also contended that so far as the expenses for the daughter is concerned, the tuition fees for the daughter are to the tune of Rs.4,500/-only per month. The wife is required to incur compulsory expenses not only for food but also for her medical treatment and also for education of her daughter. As per evidence on record, the wife gets Rs.2,000/-only per month from the son begotten by her earlier marriage with another person. Admittedly, the said son is residing in the flat purchased by the husband. So, practically, the income of the wife from her son is to the tune of Rs.2,000/-only per month and this is the regular source of her income. This being the position, the amount granted by the learned Trial Judge, I am of the view, is nominal in consideration of the total expenditure to be borne by the wife as noted in page no.s 4 & 5 of the application. While disposing of the said application for alimony, the learned Trial Judge in coming to the conclusion about the income of the husband has observed that though the husband has contended that he left the service, he was able to pay a sum of Rs.44,000/-only and another sum of Rs.1 lakh only to the wife as per order of the Hon’ble Court, so, he is capable of providing for her maintenance. This observation, in my view, cannot be supported in view of the fact that such amount had been paid almost under compulsion as per order of this Hon’ble Court. So, by such payment, it does not mean that the husband has the capacity to pay considerable amount of money to the wife towards her alimony. Anyway, certain guess work is permissible if the situation demands. In the instant case, the husband has contended that he left the job on the ground of health. So, by such payment, it does not mean that the husband has the capacity to pay considerable amount of money to the wife towards her alimony. Anyway, certain guess work is permissible if the situation demands. In the instant case, the husband has contended that he left the job on the ground of health. If it is so, he knew very well the consequences of the filing of the suit and the fact that, he might have to pay the alimony that may be passed against him and in such circumstances, the guess work is permissible that on knowing very well that he was to pay certain amount towards alimony, he left the job. So, he has enough fund to provide alimony for the wife and the daughter. This is not an appeal to discuss the evidence thoroughly. This Court is to consider whether the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge is based on evidence on record and if there is any scope for enhancement as claimed by the wife or awarding less amount as claimed by the husband. Having regard to the status of the parties, the previous income of the husband as reflected from the depositions and the financial condition of the husband, I am of the view that for the survival of the wife, a minimum sum of Rs.10,000/-only per month towards medical expenses must be paid without fail. Mr. Basu has submitted the wife did not file any medical paper after 2009, and so, the wife will not get any alimony on medical ground after 2009. With due respect to him, I am of the view that this submission cannot be accepted inasmuch the medical papers proves the disease referred to and the husband is not in a position to deny such disease. Similarly, the husband is bound to bear the costs of education for the daughter minimum Rs.5,000/-only per month. So, an amount of Rs.15,000/-only per month for the wife for her survival must be awarded. The daughter requires food, etc. In consideration of the status of the parties, travelling charges for the daughter and other consideration, I am of the view that the father of the daughter shall be directed to pay Rs.5,000/-only more per month for her food, traveling charges, etc. The daughter requires food, etc. In consideration of the status of the parties, travelling charges for the daughter and other consideration, I am of the view that the father of the daughter shall be directed to pay Rs.5,000/-only more per month for her food, traveling charges, etc. Alternatively, I can say that the husband shall be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-only per month total to the wife for the maintenance of their daughter. Therefore, the husband is bound to pay Rs.25,000/-only per month as minimum for the two. The award on litigation costs should not be interfered with. The other terms and conditions relating to alimony and the mode of payment also should not be interfered with. During the argument, it is contended on behalf of the husband that the son of the wife by first marriage is paying a sum of Rs.2,000/-only per month. This is, I hold, a very significant in view of the total expenditure to be incurred for the purpose of food, lodging, medicine, electric and telephone bill payment and other expenses. So, if that amount is taken into consideration, yet, the husband should be directed to pay Rs.25,000/-only per month to the wife for survival of the two. It is also contended that the said son is enjoying the facilities of the flat, electricity, telephone, etc. Anyway, a mother cannot be directed to live separately from his son begotten by the first marriage particularly, when the husband is staying elsewhere and she has been suffering from the disease already stated earlier. So, if the said son resides with the mother, a very nominal amount may be expended by the mother for the son, yet that amount the mother must bear out of the amount, that is, being awarded against the husband in favour of the wife and so, such negligible matter should not be taken into consideration. Anyway, the son is earning and he shall be a helping hand to the mother in case of need of financial matter and any other kind of assistance both. So the son cannot be a dependant on the mother. Anyway, the son is earning and he shall be a helping hand to the mother in case of need of financial matter and any other kind of assistance both. So the son cannot be a dependant on the mother. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application succeeds in part and the alimony as granted by the learned Trial Judge needs to be set aside and a sum of Rs.25,000/-only per month must be paid by the husband to the wife for the maintenance of the two. The application succeeds and is disposed of accordingly. The husband / opposite party herein is directed to pay Rs.25,000/-only per month to the wife / petitioner herein as alimony pendente lite till the disposal of the suit. The award on litigation costs is not interfered with. The other terms and conditions relating to alimony and the mode of payment are not interfered with. The impugned order is modified accordingly. The alimony already paid by the husband to the wife shall be adjusted against the alimony so awarded. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. C.O. No.1409 of 2012:- This application has been filed by the husband for setting aside the order of alimony on the ground that an exuberant amount of Rs.15,000/-only per month has been granted as alimony pendente lite without due consideration of the evidence on record and the fact that the husband is an unemployed person at present. In view of the findings in other C.O. No.615 of 2012, this application is bound to fail. So, on the selfsame reasoning, this application is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.