Judgment : Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. Both these revisional applications were directed against the order No.139 dated 5th of May, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No.13 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.26 of 2008. Shib Shankar Rungta (petitioner of C. O.2529 of 2012 and O. P. of C. O. No.3105 of 2012) filed a divorce suit being Mat. Suit No.26 of 2008 against wife Poonam Rungta (O. P. of C. No.2529 of 2012 and petitioner of C. O. No.3105 of 2012). In said Matrimonial suit the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1955) praying for pendente lite maintenance. Her specific case was that their marriage was held on 10th of December, 1986 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and that three children namely two daughters and one son were born from said wedlock. It is further case that the petitioner and her children were constantly tortured by her husband and that ultimately they were driven out from her matrimonial home around February, 2005. Initially she and her children took shelter in her parents’ house and finally they shifted at F. D. 467, Flat No.8 Sector 3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. It is further case that the petitioner had to incur the medical expenditure of Rs.70,000/- for treatment of her daughter Barsha but her husband did not pay anything to meet said medical expenses. It is her case that though she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband but she did not proceed with the same. It is her further case that her husband is a supplier to the jute mills including National Jute Mill Corporation. Her husband has also a transport business under the name and style Kanchan Transport. He has a monthly income of Rs.2 lakhs and odd. He has immovable properties and runs several companies in the name and style S. S. Rungta, Sudarshan Rungta and S. S. Rungta and Company. It is her further case that her husband received 2.5 crores from the National Jute Mill Corporation on account of business transactions and also have several investments in L. I. C. policies, P. P. F. etc. He has immovable properties and runs several companies in the name and style S. S. Rungta, Sudarshan Rungta and S. S. Rungta and Company. It is her further case that her husband received 2.5 crores from the National Jute Mill Corporation on account of business transactions and also have several investments in L. I. C. policies, P. P. F. etc. The petitioner having no income has claimed pendente lite alimony at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month for herself, and her children, Rs. 10 lakhs for the marriage of their daughter, Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost. The husband contested said application by filing written objection denying material allegations of the petition alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was rather driven out from his house by the wife who also took away all household belongings, articles, jewellary etc. and sold out the car. It is his further case that the wife has an earning of Rs.30,000/- per month and is an income tax payee. He could not run his jute business and that he had no transport business or any other substantial income from any business as alleged. He maintained mediclaim for treatment of his family members and that presently he earns Rs.6,000/-per month by working in a private firm. In May 2006 he sent a money order of Rs.4,500/-to the wife but the same returned refused. He prayed for dismissal of the application. After contested hearing learned trial court allowed said application in part directing the husband to pay the wife pendente lite alimony at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of the order and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved with said order the husband has filed the revisional application (C. O. No.2529 of 2012) alleging that the order impugned was not sustainable in law as learned trial court did not consider that wife had sufficient income and was able to maintain herself whereas the husband is presently not in a position to pay any maintenance to the wife. The wife, on the other hand, has filed the other revisional application (C. O. No.3105 of 2012) alleging that learned trial court failed to take note that the husband was a business man having an income of Rs. 2 lakhs and odd per month and that the amount of maintenance so awarded was disproportionately low. Mr. The wife, on the other hand, has filed the other revisional application (C. O. No.3105 of 2012) alleging that learned trial court failed to take note that the husband was a business man having an income of Rs. 2 lakhs and odd per month and that the amount of maintenance so awarded was disproportionately low. Mr. Subrata Talukdar appearing for the husband submits that learned trial court failed to take note that the wife being an income tax payee had sufficient means to maintain herself. He next submits that the learned trial court also failed to appreciate that the husband who had once a business had no longer any business and that he was getting a paltry sum from employment. According to him, the husband produced relevant income tax returns of the wife and also document showing owning of a vehicle but learned trial court failed to appreciate those documents in their proper perspective. According to him, the order of payment of pendente lite alimony that too at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month was against the materials on record and should be set aside. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya appearing for the wife, on the other hand, submits that in the written objection filed by the husband it has no where stated specifically that wife had sufficient income or what were the sources of said income. He further submits that the income tax returns in the name of the wife produced in court were not believable as the wife denied her signature thereupon and there was also no material to show that wife owned any house or had any income from house property. He next submits that learned trial court dealt with the evidence on record according to law to turn down the claim of the husband that wife had sufficient income to maintain herself. However, he submits that learned trial court should have awarded maintenance at a higher rate considering the status of the parties and that too from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order. There is no denial that there was marriage between the parties according to Hindu rites in 1986 and that two daughters, one in 1987 and other in 1989 and another son in 1992 were born from said wedlock. There is no denial that there was marriage between the parties according to Hindu rites in 1986 and that two daughters, one in 1987 and other in 1989 and another son in 1992 were born from said wedlock. It is also an admitted fact that the parties stayed together till 2005 and that thereafter the wife along with her children are residing separately. As all the children have since become major, learned trial court refused to grant any maintenance on their account. There was also no denial that the husband had a business. The wife took the plea that her husband had several businesses where from he had a monthly income of Rs.2 lakhs and odds. She also alleged that her husband had various immovable properties and also received 2.5 crores from the National Jute Mill Corporation on account of business transaction. Whereas the husband took the plea that on account of prolonged torture meted upon him by his wife and children he had closed his business and was presently employed in another’s office at a salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. The husband also took the plea that the wife being an income tax payee had sufficient income to maintain herself. Both sides laid evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective claims. It appears from the order impugned that learned trial court examined the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and came to a finding of fact that husband failed to prove convincingly that his business was totally stopped or that he did not receive substantial amount from his alleged closed business. It further appears that learned trial court was not also much convinced with the evidence of husband’s side about his taking of employment in another’s office and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned trial court also examined the evidence of I. T. O. and the income tax returns in the name of the wife. According to him, as per I. T. return there was income from house property though there was no evidence that the wife had any house property. The wife claimed that said I. T. return did not bear her signature and the I. T. O. officer who deposed in court admitted that there was no enquiry from the side of the I. T. Department regarding the genuineness of the said return. The wife claimed that said I. T. return did not bear her signature and the I. T. O. officer who deposed in court admitted that there was no enquiry from the side of the I. T. Department regarding the genuineness of the said return. In perspective of said evidence learned trial court was not inclined to give much reliance on said I. T. return. It is true that a document was filed to show that a vehicle namely truck was standing in the name of the wife. However, the wife took the specific plea that the father of the wife was running a transport business under the name and style “Poonam Transport” even before her birth and that the income of said vehicle was enjoyed by his father. Some documents were also filed in support of said claim. I find that learned trial court marshaled those evidence, both oral and documentary, and came to a finding of fact that the wife was not able to maintain herself as per standard of her husband and that the husband had sufficient means to maintain his wife and that an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance together with one time litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- will meet the ends of justice. I do not find any patent irregularity or illegality either in the act of marshalling of evidence or in the order impugned. It is true that learned trial court passed said order of allowing pendente lite maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. The parties are residing separately since 2006. The wife earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2006 praying for maintenance but later on did not press the same as the husband has filed a matrimonial suit in 2007. This Misc. Case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in 2009 and was once dismissed for default in 2011 to be restored again. In view of said facts as stated above I am of the opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any error by allowing the Misc. Case praying for pendente lite maintenance from the date of order instead of the date of filing of the application. In view of said facts as stated above I am of the opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any error by allowing the Misc. Case praying for pendente lite maintenance from the date of order instead of the date of filing of the application. I do not also find any ground for enhancement of said amount in view of the materials on record. Accordingly, both the revisional applications are hereby dismissed on contest but without costs.