JUDGMENT : 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner/wife eventually no compliance report has submitted in terms of order dated 6th June, 2016. Since the revisional application being C.O.1592 of 2016 arose out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order no.11 dated 15th March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Barasat in Matrimonial Suit No.109 of 2019 (Nandita Ram (Bhattacharjee) by which learned Additional District Judge directed to make payment of maintenance pendente lite in favour of the petitioner, payable by the husband/opposite party with effect from the date of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act apart from direction to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs, the matter is taken up for disposal on merit. 2. From the ground as contended in the revisional application, the petitioner due to price hike of the essential commodities and having regard to income of her husband allegedly averred in the pleading claimed the amount of maintenance pendente lite as insufficient. However, if we look back to the Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or even Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 then it transpires that it provides grant of maintenance pendente lite upon application of either of these spouses. One proviso also has been appended to such Section 24 or Section 36(supra) mandating the obligation upon the Court to dispose of such application bearing prayer of maintenance of pendente lite is reasonably as possible within a period of 60 days. Since apart from those provisions there is no other indication in the law that the awarded sum can be enhanced than the sum granted by the learned trial Court exercising its jurisdiction upon hearing both sides. The maintainability of the revisional application itself to my mind is at stake. 3. It can be reiterated that the force of maintenance of pendente lite comes to an end on completion of the matrimonial suit. If any such matrimonial suit for divorce ends with the decree of divorce in that event learned trial Court again upon application may think of providing permanent alimony within the ambit of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act whichever will be applicable. If any such matrimonial suit for divorce ends with the decree of divorce in that event learned trial Court again upon application may think of providing permanent alimony within the ambit of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act whichever will be applicable. In that case only there is the scope of modification by way of enhancing or otherwise with the aid of sub-sections (2) and (3), appended to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act. 4. By the above observations this Court does not mean that Section 24 or Section 36 of the respective Act has ousted this Court from entertaining the likewise application for passing order on either way. What this Court wants to indicate that when such a proceeding providing maintenance pendente lite once attained finality upto any level by disposal of the application, any 2nd application for enhancement in such amount or otherwise during pendency of the suit is not permissible. 5. However, while learned trial Court after considering all pros and cons has decided the amount towards maintenance pendente lite payable by the husband @ Rs.2,000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, in the decision-making process the same cannot be captioned as any act of illegality, far to speak of perverseness. This Court on the lis of maintainability of the application proposing enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite has already decided in the case of C.O.2486 of 2016 with C.O.2913 of 2016. Therefore, within the ambit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there being no lapses in recording the impugned order this Court finds no merit to make any interference with the same. Therefore, the revisional application is accordingly dismissed on merit. 6. Department is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial Court with direction to expedite the suit in accordance with law.