JUDGMENT 1. This is an application filed by the husband in Matrimonial Suit No. 496 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court in Howrah. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated July 9, 2019 passed by the learned court below by which the learned court has directed the husband petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the wife and the child from the date of filing of the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act and also to pay a lump sum of Rs.15,000/- as litigation costs. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the suit is for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and as such the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. Rs.15,000/- was excessive, as an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- or more has already been withdrawn by the wife from the husbands bank account. 4. I have considered the order impugned and I find that the learned court has considered the monthly expenses of the daughter, who is a student of Class-VIII, by examining the fees structure etc. filed by the wife. The husband did not allege that the wife had any personal income. The husband is a Manager of HDFC Bank and earns Rs.55,000/- p.m. according to the wife. The husband/petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that his monthly income is less than Rs.55,000/-. Neither his income tax return nor his salary slip was filed for the court to rebut the contentions of the wife. As regards the withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- or more from the husbands bank account the learned court below held that the said point will be decided at the final hearing on trial. 5. It is also a fact that the wife is residing with her parents as a dependent and it is also stated in the application before the learned court below that the husband does not have any dependent. 6. In the absence of any proof to the contrary that the husband earns less amount than what the wife had stated before the learned court, the learned judge rightly directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the daughter and the wife. The said amount is not excessive. The husband has not been able to show that his income was not sufficient in order to pay Rs.15,000/- to the wife. 7. The said amount is not excessive. The husband has not been able to show that his income was not sufficient in order to pay Rs.15,000/- to the wife. 7. It is also true that the said amount has been awarded keeping in view the status of the wife as the wife was living in her matrimonial home, being married to a manager of a well known Bank. 8. The expression 'maintenance' and 'support' had fallen for consideration in Rajesh Burman v. 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'. 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, travelling expense, or other proper cognate purposes; also, proper care, nursing, and medical attendance in sickness, and suitable burial at death.' The Delhi High Court in Radhika Narang v. Karun Raj Narang 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. 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 v. Geeta Rani Das reported at 2006 (2) CLT 85 (HC). The Act does not prescribe any formula to be applied in determining the quantum of alimony pendente lite. In Soma Chowdhury (Sarkar) v. 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.' There is no rigid and inflexible rule that can be applied in determining the maintenance amount. It does not enact any mathematical formula of one-third or any other proportion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (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. 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.' 9. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, reported in 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. 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. 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.' 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 234 approved the principle enunciated in Mt. Ekradeshwari v. 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 v. 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 v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1343 , held that Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and raiment. 11. The revisional application is dismissed. 12. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.