Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 196 (CAL)

Soummopriyo Chakrabarti v. Twinkle Chakrabarty

2016-02-23

SOUMEN SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Soumen Sen, J. The husband and wife both dissatisfied with the order dated November 27, 2014 for different reasons filed two revisional applications challenging the said order passed by the Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 45 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 172 of 2009. 2. The said impugned order was passed in a proceeding initiated by the wife under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act. 3. While the husband would contend that the trial court could not have directed payment of alimony with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. August 8, 2009. The wife would contend that the amount determined by the trial court is insufficient and not commensurate with the income of the husband. 4. Before entering into the legality and correctness of the order impugned, it is necessary to consider the scope, ambit and width of Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “36. Alimony pendente lite. – Where in any proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI it appears to the district Court that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order the husband to pay to her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during the proceeding such as having regard to the husband’s income, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable: [Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such weekly or monthly sum during the proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the husband.]” 5. The said expression “maintenance” and “support” has fallen for consideration in Rajesh Burman Vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman) reported in 2009(1) SCC 398. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision considered Sections 36 and 37 of the Special Marriage Act and upon examination of the said two expressions “maintenance” and “support” it was held as follows:- “25. Reading the scheme of the Act, it is clear that a wife is entitled to “maintenance and support”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision considered Sections 36 and 37 of the Special Marriage Act and upon examination of the said two expressions “maintenance” and “support” it was held as follows:- “25. Reading the scheme of the Act, it is clear that a wife is entitled to “maintenance and support”. In our considered opinion, the learned counsel for the respondent wife is right in submitting that the two terms “maintenance” and “support” are comprehensive in nature and of wide amplitude. 26. The term “maintenance” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn., pp.953-54) thus:- “…The furnishing by one person to another, for his or her support, of the means of living, or food, clothing, shelter, etc. particularly where the legal relation of the parties is such that one is bound to support the other, as between father and child, or husband and wife.” Likewise, the word “support” as defined in the said dictionary (p.1439) reads as under:- “That which furnishes a livelihood; a source or means of living; subsistence, sustenance, maintenance, or living. In a broad sense the term includes all such means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort, suitable and become to his station of life. It is said to include anything requisite of housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expense, or other proper cognate purposes; also, proper care, nursing, and medical attendance in sickness, and suitable burial at death.” 27. The courts below also considered some of the decisions cited before them. In Pradeep Kumar Kapoor v. Shailja Kapoor reported in AIR 1989 Del 10 , the High Court of Delhi interpreted “maintenance” and “support” under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed: (AIR pp.12-13 para 9) “9. Under Section 24 of the Act, the Court has to see if the applicant who may either be wife or husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, and then award expenses of the proceeding and such sum every month, having regard to the applicant’s own income and the income of the respondent, which may seem to the court to be reasonable. This Section may be contrasted with Section 25 of the Act which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. This Section may be contrasted with Section 25 of the Act which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. Under Section 25, the court may order the respondent to pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support, till her or his lifetime, either a lump sum amount or such monthly or periodical sum, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, and the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, which the court might deem just. It may be noticed that heading of Section 24 of the Act is ‘Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings’, but, to me, it appears that the words ‘support’ and ‘maintenance’ are synonymous. ‘Support’ means ‘to provide money for a person to live on’, like ‘he supports a family’ or ‘he supports his old mother’. Maintenance is ‘an act of maintaining’ i.e. to support with money. For example, ‘he is too poor to maintain his family’. It may be useful at this stage to refer to the definition of ‘maintenance’ as given in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’). Under Section 3 of that Act, ‘maintenance’ includes (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. I would, therefore, think that when we talk of maintenance and support, the definition of ‘maintenance’ as given in the Act of 1956 should be adopted. Section 18 of the Act of 1956 also refers to maintenance of wife and gives the circumstances under which a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance." 28. In Atul Sashikant Mude v. Niranjana Atul Mude reported in AIR 1998 Bom 234 , the Court considered the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and held that a court is empowered to pass interim and ad interim orders of maintenance. It was held that the inclusive definition of “maintenance” under the Act would include food, clothing, residence, education, medical attendance and treatment. 29. It was held that the inclusive definition of “maintenance” under the Act would include food, clothing, residence, education, medical attendance and treatment. 29. In R. Suresh v. Chandra reported in AIR 2003 Kant 183, a similar question arose before the High Court of Karnataka, Construing the word “support” in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held that the word “support” occurring in the said section can be given the same meaning attributed to the word “maintenance” as defined in Section 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which would include provisions for food, clothing, residence, education, medical attendance and treatment. 30. Recently, in Ajay Saxena v. Rachna Saxena reported in AIR 2007 Del 39 , analyzing the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court held that in a suit under Section 18 of the Act, the wife can claim interim maintenance. It was further held that such interim maintenance may also cover expenses incurred towards medical treatment. Obligation of the husband to pay such expenses cannot be deferred till final adjudication of the suit. Nor can husband avoid obligation to pay further sum to his wife towards medical reimbursement on the ground that the amount of interim maintenance being passed included entire expenses on medical treatment.” 6. The question as to what income is sufficient for the support of the wife, would have to be taken with reference to the Class she and her husband belong to and if the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife is to depend on the status and station of the husband as the amount which can be regarded to be sufficient for her support must also depend on and vary with the status and station of the husband. (Chitra Sen Gupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sen Gupta, 1987 (1) CHN 450 ). 7. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Division Bench was considering the expression “income sufficient for her support” in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Division Bench in Paragraphs 4 and 5 held as follows:- “4. (Chitra Sen Gupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sen Gupta, 1987 (1) CHN 450 ). 7. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Division Bench was considering the expression “income sufficient for her support” in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Division Bench in Paragraphs 4 and 5 held as follows:- “4. Class less society being still a very far cry and the society we live in being class ridden to the extreme, the question as to what income is sufficient for the support of a wife, would, whether one likes it or not, have to be determined with reference to the class she and her husband belong to. And, therefore, what may be considered to be sufficient for the support of the wife of a petty clerk would not be regarded to be sufficient for the support of the wife of a high-salaried big officer. “To support” lexically means to supply with necessaries and Section 68 of the Contract Act would show necessaries in respect of a person must be “suited to his condition in life”. And as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in construing that Section in Jagon Ram v. Mahadeo Prosad (ILR 36 Cal 768 at 777), necessaries would include everything necessary to maintain a person in the state, station or degree of life in which he is and being thus a relative expression must be determined with reference to those factors. It has been held by an another Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Nath v. Puspa (1978 2 CLJ 602 at 604), that the quantum of maintenance pendente lite under s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would depend on various factors “such as, the ability of the husband, the needs of wife, the social status, age, education and other requirements”. It may also be noted that under s. 23(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded to a wife, that first thing the Court would have to regard to is “the position and the status of the parties”. It may also be noted that under s. 23(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded to a wife, that first thing the Court would have to regard to is “the position and the status of the parties”. We are of the view that if the amount of maintenance awardable to the wife is to depend on the status and station of the husband, the amount which can be regarded to be sufficient for her support must also depend on and vary with the status and station of the husband. We would accordingly hold that the expression “income sufficient for her support” in s. 24 of the Act would not mean only such amount as would be sufficient for the wife to eke out her existence at the subsistence level, but would cover such amount as would be necessary for the necessaries suited to the status and station which the wife would have enjoyed as the wife of the respondent husband. 5. If this is, and we think that it is, the position in law, then we would be inclined to hold that even though the amount of about Rs.1900/- or even about 1200/- would otherwise have to be taken as sufficient for the support of the petitioner by the ordinary Indian standard, the same cannot be regarded to be sufficient for her support in view of the class her husband belongs to and the status he enjoys.” 8. There is no ceiling as to the amount of maintenance to be awarded under the Special Marriage Act, unlike Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and Section 39 of the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936. On the aspect of the quantum of alimony to be awarded by way of alimony pendente lite, it was held in 1979 (1) CHN 15 (Surendra Nath Arora vs. Sm. Puspa Arora) that quantum of alimony to be awarded is certainly a matter of discretion depending upon various factors such as the ability of the husband, needs of the wife, the social status, age, education and other requirements of the applicant and so on. In the absence of express provision as to maximum alimony in the Hindu Marriage Act, discretion vested in the Court determining the reasonable amount of maintenance should not be curtailed by importation of principle from the Indian Divorce Act. In the absence of express provision as to maximum alimony in the Hindu Marriage Act, discretion vested in the Court determining the reasonable amount of maintenance should not be curtailed by importation of principle from the Indian Divorce Act. Ordinarily and in the absence of special circumstances, one fifth of the husband’s income less wife’s income, if any, is taken as a safe guide. 9. The judgment in Surendra Nath (supra) was considered subsequently by another Division Bench in Chitra Sen Gupta (supra) and held as follows:- “13. Though Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act fixes no ceiling as to the amount of maintenance to be awarded as in Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and Section 39 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, a Division Bench of this Court has accepted such limits to the extent of one-fifth of the husband’s income which is ordinarily a safe guide in the absence of special circumstances. The claim of the wife of Rs.7000/- per month falls far below such ceiling in this case where the husband’s income has been accepted to be to the tune of £ 40,000/- per year. 14. In determining the amount to be awarded to the wife as cost of litigation, the income of the husband ought to be taken into consideration. The claim of the petitioner for Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation is allowed.” 10. The Delhi High Court in Radhika Narang & Ors. Vs. Karun Raj Narang & Anr. reported at 2009 (1) DMC 814 (Delhi) held that the purpose of providing maintenance is to secure a wife as far as possible the status and facilities enjoyed by her prior to her separation from her husband. The determination of the maintenance allowance not being governed by any rigid or inflexible rule but it gives wide power and discretion to the Court to do justice. For the purpose of fixation of quantum the status of the husband as well as the status of the wife are to be taken into consideration. Perceptibility of the income is not the test. The requirement is potentiality. In spite of absence of any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the husband, the Court can award maintenance allowance in order to do justice keeping in mind the social reality and the nature of the work of the husband. Perceptibility of the income is not the test. The requirement is potentiality. In spite of absence of any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the husband, the Court can award maintenance allowance in order to do justice keeping in mind the social reality and the nature of the work of the husband. Moreover, there can be an enhancement of maintenance allowance due to change in the circumstance which includes rise in the cost of living and increase of earning of the husband. (Narayan Chandra Das vs. Geeta Rani Das reported at 2006 (2) CLT 85 (HC)). 11. The Act does not prescribe any formula to be applied in determining the quantum of alimony pendente lite. In Soma Chowdhury (Sarkar) Vs. Pradip Kumar Chowdhury reported at 2009 (1) CHN 282 it was observed:- “It is now settled law that the amount of alimony pendente lite should vary between one-third and one-fifth of the income of the earning spouse depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.” 12. There is no rigid and inflexible rule that can be applied in determining the said amount. It leaves plaintiff to the Judges’ discretion. It does not enact any mathematical formula of one-third or any other proportion. It gives wide power flexible and elastic to do justice in a given case. 13. The Delhi High Court in Dev Dutt Singh Vs. Smt. Rajni Gandhi reported at AIR 1984 Del 320 held that:- “30. A word of caution. On Sections 24 and 25 of the Act there is a “wagon-load of cases”, to use a phrase of Lord Atkin (See Harris v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd., (1939) AC 71, 78). But they do not lay down any proposition of law. They are decisions on the particular facts of those cases. “We ought to be beware of allowing tests or guides which have been suggested by the Court in one set of circumstances, or in one class of cases to be applied to other surroundings”, and thus by degrees to turn that which is at bottom a question of fact into a proposition of law. If we allow this to happen we will be crushed under the weight of our own reports. If we allow this to happen we will be crushed under the weight of our own reports. (See Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. v. Haynes, (1959) AC 743 761 (per Lord Denning).) But it must not be forgotten that the award of maintenance pendente lite has to be reasonable, having regard to the income of the parties. On the facts of this case and having regard to the income of husband and wife I have no hesitation in holding that the Judge’s award is eminently just.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 65: 1997 (7) SCC 7 observed:- “No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” 15. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra, reported in 2004 (3) RCR (Civil) 362: 110 (2004) DLT 546, while applying the above judgment laid down the following principles of law for ascertaining the quantum of maintenance :- In other words the court must first arrive at the net disposable income of the husband or the dominant earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working these earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family members, which is exactly what happens when the spouses are one homogeneous unit. Ms. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family members, which is exactly what happens when the spouses are one homogeneous unit. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel for the Respondent had fervently contended that normally 1/5th of the disposable income is allowed to the wife. She has not shown any authority or precedent for this proposition and the only source or foundation for it may be traceable to Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. This archaic statute mercifully does not apply to the parties before the Court, and is a vestige of a bygone era where the wife/woman was considered inferior to the husband as somewhat akin to his chattels. The law has advanced appreciably, and for the better. In the face of Legislatures reluctant to bring about any change over fifty years ago the Courts held that the deserted wife was entitled to an equal division of matrimonial assets. I would be extremely loath to restrict maintenance to 1/5th of the Husband’s income where this would be insufficient for the Wife to live in a manner commensurative with her Husband’s status or similar to the lifestyle enjoyed by her before the marital severance. In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the Husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar vs. Raj Kumari, AIR 1971 SC 234 approved the principle enunciated in Mt. Ekradeshwari vs. Homeshwar, AIR 1929 PC 128 that Maintenance depends upon a gathering together of all the facts of the situation, the income of the parties, a survey of the conditions and necessities, regard being had to the scale and mode of living, and to the age, habits wants and class of life of the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Mal vs. Punni Devi, 1995 (3) RRR 632: (1995) 6 SCC 88 held as follows Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Mal vs. Punni Devi, 1995 (3) RRR 632: (1995) 6 SCC 88 held as follows Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharani Kesarkunverba vs. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1960 SC 1343 , held that Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and raiment. 17. In the light of the above discussion the respective claims are required to be considered. 18. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 2nd February, 2003. A male child was borne on 24th August, 2004. On 6th July, 2009 the husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The suit was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 1326 of 2009. The wife left the matrimonial home in the year 2008. The wife filed an application on 18the September, 2009 under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act claiming Rs.20,000/- per month towards pendente lite alimony and Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the son and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expense. 19. In the application, the wife alleged that due to torture by the husband and his family members she had to leave the matrimonial home and she is presently staying with her father. The wife is interested to come back to the matrimonial home. The husband has failed and neglected the look after child and wife. The income of the husband would not be less than Rs.2,00,000/- per month and the expense of the wife including the expense of child is Rs.30,000/- per month. 20. The husband contested the said proceeding. In the written objection, it was contended that the wife has independent income as well as the income from the house property by letting out the property of Dover Lane. The husband has to maintain his old parents and his grand-mother who is dependent on him. 20. The husband contested the said proceeding. In the written objection, it was contended that the wife has independent income as well as the income from the house property by letting out the property of Dover Lane. The husband has to maintain his old parents and his grand-mother who is dependent on him. The wife without any rhyme or reason ever since returning from USA in June, 2008 was staying with her parents and she refused to return to her matrimonial home and resume conjugal life with the husband. It was contended that the husband was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month, at the relevant point of time namely, September, 2009. The wife has sufficient income to sustain herself inasmuch as she was working with different concerns between 2001 till 2007 and she had sufficient savings to sustain herself. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in the said proceeding, the Trial Court allowed the application for alimony by directing the husband to pay sum of Rs.8000/- towards pendente lite alimony of the wife and Rs.10,000/-towards the maintenance of minor son from the date of application that is 18th August, 2009 along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The husband was directed to pay the arrears in 10 equal installments and the current alimony to be paid on 7th of each month. 22. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that the Trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in directing the husband to pay the maintenance from the date of application that is 18th September, 2009 disregarding the fact that at the relevant point of time the wife had sufficient income to sustain herself inasmuch as the present income of the husband could not have been the basis of the order as to the date from which the order of alimony is to take effect. It is submitted that the basis of the order is erroneous and the same is required to be set aside. 23. Per contra, Mr. S.P Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife submits that the disclosure made by the husband in the proceeding as to his salary and income were discrepant. It is submitted that the basis of the order is erroneous and the same is required to be set aside. 23. Per contra, Mr. S.P Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife submits that the disclosure made by the husband in the proceeding as to his salary and income were discrepant. It would be evident from the documents produced by the wife that the husband at the relevant time was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month and even if one applies the golden rule of two-third or one-third of the income of the husband as the case may be the husband would be liable to pay not less than Rs.15,000/- per month on account of maintenance. It is submitted that the husband suppressed the income for which the wife approached the employer of the husband, namely, IBM India Private Limited and on the basis of the Salary Certificate produced before the trial court, the aforesaid amount was determined. 24. Mr. Mukherjee, however, submits that considering the fact that the present annual income of the husband is more than Rs.15,00,000/- the alimony amount is required to be enhanced. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the husband is duty bound to maintain the wife and the child and maintenance amount should be commensurate with the standard of living inasmuch as it is the moral obligation of the husband to maintain his dependents. 25. The difficulty often faced by the Court in determining the quantum of alimony pendente lite is that in most of the cases the parties to the proceeding suppressed their respective salary and/or earnings. The wife contended before the Trial Court during her evidence that although she is qualified and could get an employment easily for her but she preferred to stay back for the welfare of the child. Initially the wife did not disclose Income Tax Return, however, during the cross-examination she disclosed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 wherefrom it appears that she has gross income of Rs.1,36,624/-. It further revealed during such cross-examination that she had filed Income Tax Return wherefrom it would appear since July, 2005 her income had increased. In the year 2011 her gross income was Rs.1,22,440/-. Accordingly, the contention of the wife before the trial court was that she had nil income was incorrect. It further revealed during such cross-examination that she had filed Income Tax Return wherefrom it would appear since July, 2005 her income had increased. In the year 2011 her gross income was Rs.1,22,440/-. Accordingly, the contention of the wife before the trial court was that she had nil income was incorrect. However, the fact remains as to whether the said income of the wife is sufficient to maintain herself and the child. 26. There cannot be any doubt that at the relevant time that is to say in the year 2009, the income of the husband was more than Rs.52,000/-per month. There are materials on record to show that apart from the said income he had received substantial payments in EURO for the previous year which goes to show that he has acquired sufficient wealth. The information supplied by the employer of the husband namely the Salary Certificate produced in this proceeding would show that since 2009 the income of the husband had increased considerably and presently the husband is earning more than Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. On the basis of the available record, the petitioner cannot contend that the quantum of maintenance for the current period was unjustified. There is also no material on record to show that after 2011 the wife had any source of income. The husband would contend that the wife had voluntarily left the job with a view to create a cause of action for the present application and to force the husband to pay for her maintenance as well. The husband possibly has lost sight of the fact that in absence of the husband taking any responsibility to maintain the child which is clearly evident from record the wife had no other alternative and as a mother of the child she had to take care of the child and in fact, she is taking care of the child. The husband could not establish that after the wife has left the matrimonial home he had offered to pay any amount for the child even if it is accepted for the sake of the argument that the wife at that point of time had sufficient income to sustain herself. The maintenance of the child is the equal responsibility of the parents. 27. The maintenance of the child is the equal responsibility of the parents. 27. The Court being the guardian of the minors is required to ensure the welfare and well-being of the minor and in discharge of such duty is under a duty to direct the father to maintain the child even if the mother is having sufficient means to maintain the child as the father cannot evade his moral and legal responsibility of maintaining his child. 28. The question thus arises whether the wife would be entitled to Rs.8,000/- towards her pendente lite alimony since September, 2009 when admittedly in the year 2009 she had an annual income of Rs.1,84,460/-. At the relevant time, the annual gross income of the husband was about Rs.45.60 thousand. This aspect of the matter appears to have not been considered by the trial court. The trial court on such given facts could not have directed payment of maintenance from the date of the application in so far as the wife is concerned. However, the said income had gradually decreased and in the year 2011, the gross annual income of the wife was Rs.1.22 lakhs. Thereafter, she had no income presumably because she had to leave the job for the welfare of the child. The Court has to see whether a sum of Rs.1.22 lakhs per annum is sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the son. It has to be kept in mind that she is the wife of a Project Manager which is quite a high up in the hierarchy in the organization and she deserves a lifestyle commensurate with the status the husband enjoys. 29. In adjudicating and determining the monthly allowance if the Court finds that the applicant has no sufficient independent income for his or her support, the gross income of the respondent is to be kept in mind for judging the standard of living of the applicant. Wife is entitled to maintain the same standard of living as she used to maintain while living with her husband. 30. Under such circumstances, in my view, justice would be done if the husband is directed to pay alimony pendente lite to the wife from January, 2012. The husband has already paid a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs in compliance of the order dated 14th January, 2016. 31. The argument made by Mr. 30. Under such circumstances, in my view, justice would be done if the husband is directed to pay alimony pendente lite to the wife from January, 2012. The husband has already paid a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs in compliance of the order dated 14th January, 2016. 31. The argument made by Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Court should not have directed payment of the alimony pendente lite from the date of application and it should be from the date of passing of the order cannot be of universal application. It would depend upon the facts of the case. If the wife is otherwise found to be entitled to get such benefit on the day when the said application was filed, the question would arise as to why she should not be given the benefit during the period throughout when the said petition was pending. There cannot be any justifiable ground for which she could be deprived of getting this benefit during the pendency of the said application. If the said petition was allowed on the day when it was moved then she could have ripped the benefit of the order from the date of its filing. Moreover, the husband during the said period ripped the benefit of such amount and cannot be heard to contend that the said order if given retrospective effect would cause hardship to the husband. 32. In view of the aforesaid and keeping in mind that the wife is still the wife of a project manager and having regard to the fact that he was earning monthly salary more than Rs.60,000/- in the year 2011 the husband is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards pendente lite alimony to the wife since January 2012. The order directing payment of Rs.10,000/-towards the maintenance of the minor son from the date of application that is August 18, 2009 along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- is upheld. However, the maintenance amount for the minor child would stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/- on and from March, 2016. The arrear of alimony pendente lite till the date of this order shall be paid in three equal monthly installments commencing from 7th March, 2016 and the current alimony shall be paid on 7th of each succeeding month. However, the maintenance amount for the minor child would stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/- on and from March, 2016. The arrear of alimony pendente lite till the date of this order shall be paid in three equal monthly installments commencing from 7th March, 2016 and the current alimony shall be paid on 7th of each succeeding month. The payments already made during the pendency of this proceeding would be adjusted against arrears of maintenance pendente lite. The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 33. The C.O.No.271 of 2015 and C.O. No.08 of 2015 are accordingly disposed of. 34. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 35. The Additional District Judge before whom the Matrimonial Suit is pending, is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 15 months from the date of communication of this order without granting any adjustments to either of the parties unless unavoidable. 36. Urgent xerox Certified Copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.