JUDGMENT Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed by the wife, challenging an order dated November 21, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Barasat District, 24 Paraganas (North) in Matrimonial Suit No.213 of 2015. 2. By the order impugned, the learned court below allowed the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, dated August 17, 2017. The learned court below directed the opposite party/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner from the date of the application and also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost. 3. The wife is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned court below. 4. Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, learned advocate for the wife has assailed the order impugned and submitted that the learned court below failed to consider the balance sheet of the husband as on March 31, 2018. The balance sheet would indicate that the opening balance under the head capital account was Rs.55,28,705.68/-. That the fixed assets of the husband including furniture, fixture and godown at Sripur Road, was valued at Rs.14,61,859.90/-. That investments in different fixed deposit, mutual funds, life insurances, etc. was the tune of Rs.14,55,938.19/-. That loans and advances given to three construction companies amounted to Rs. 42,58,500.00/-. Current assets of Rs.4,50,078.56/-. Bank balance of Rs.2,77,671/-. Cash in hand of Rs. 1,55,957.59/-. That the profit and loss account for the year ending on March 31, 2018 would show that the annual turnover of the business was Rs.2,58,05,902.12/-. According to him, the learned court below did not look at the financial capacity, profile, and the potentiality of the husband who owned an export-import business and completely ignored the husband's assets, investments, bank balance while awarding the alimony pendente lite. According to him, the learned court below only considered the admission of the husband in the written objection, that his income was 5 lakhs per annum. 5. According to him, the learned court below only considered the admission of the husband in the written objection, that his income was 5 lakhs per annum. 5. He further submitted that, when the balance sheet did not reflect that the loans advanced by the husband fetched any interest, in such a case, it should be safely concluded that the loans were advanced to three companies, which were either owned by the husband, or in which he had substantial interest and had sufficient income therefrom, or else, investments worth about Rs.14,55,000/- and interest free loans worth more than Rs.42,58,000/- could not be justified. The drawings for the particular assessment year was Rs.5,10,000/-. He further submitted, that even for the assessment year 2019-2020, sales from business was Rs.11,37,314.24/-. The total deposits (assets) were to the tune of Rs.27,76,079.94/-. The fixed assets remained the same and, as such, the learned court below ought to have taken into consideration the investments in insurances, mutual fund, fixed deposits, cash in hand, cash at bank, loans and advances etc. in order to arrive at the quantum of maintenance without going only by the admission of the husband. 6. Mr. Kaustav Chandra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party/husband submitted that the order impugned was passed on a remand by this court. This court had directed the learned court below to rehear the application for maintenance pendente lite, upon giving both sides an opportunity to establish the current income of the husband. This order was passed on the ground that the previous order granting maintenance pendente lite was awarded by the learned court below earlier at the rate of Rs,16,500/- per month, on the basis of income tax returns of the husband belonging to previous years and not the current ones. 7. According to Mr. Chandra, the income of the husband as reflected in the balance sheet as on March 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019 would show that the total income of the husband was Rs.1,12,600/- for assessment year 2018-2019 and Rs.1,25,000/- for assessment year 2019-2020. That the balance sheet having been audited and income tax returns having been filed in terms of the said balance sheet, there is a presumption of correctness with regard to the total income of the husband. He submitted that the order of the learned court below could not be held to be erroneous. Mr. That the balance sheet having been audited and income tax returns having been filed in terms of the said balance sheet, there is a presumption of correctness with regard to the total income of the husband. He submitted that the order of the learned court below could not be held to be erroneous. Mr. Chandra further submitted that, going by the income tax returns, the wife was entitled to much less than the amount directed to be paid by the order impugned. He further submitted that the investments and assets lying in the name of the husband would not justify enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite as prayed for. He admitted that the investments were made earlier and at that point of time the opposite party prospered in his business, but over a period of years the business had slowed down and the income had gone down drastically. That the income tax return should be taken as substantial proof of the income of the husband and the assets and investments of the husband should not be the parameters to decide the quantum of maintenance pendente lite. He further submitted that the investments, mutual fund and fixed deposits were used as security for the business and as such they were not free from encumbrances. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. In the application under Section 36 of Special Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the said application), the petitioner has categorically pleaded that the annual turnover of the sole proprietorship (export-import) business was more than Rs.2.5 crores. That the monthly income of husband was above Rs.10 lakhs. That the husband lived in a three storeyed house and his own godown was worth more than Rs.13 lakhs. He travelled to Bangladesh frequently for business and he had visited South Asian countries, Russia etc. on holidays. That he had an expensive life style. He wore branded clothes, Rado and Rolex watches and rode a very expensive two wheeler. On the other hand, apart from denying the alleged income mentioned by the wife, the other allegations and averments made by the wife, which are narrated hereinbefore, were not denied by the husband in his written objection with regard to assets, the life style and accessories used. It was also admitted in the written objection that his annual income was Rs.5 lakhs. It was also admitted in the written objection that his annual income was Rs.5 lakhs. The husband himself had admitted his income to be Rs.5 lakhs, and the learned court below took Rs.5 lakhs as the gross income and gave the benefit of tax deduction to the said amount, thereby reducing the annual income to approximately Rs.4,70,000/- and awarded a little less than 1/4th of said amount as said maintenance pendente lite. 9. The learned court below considered the balance sheet of the business of the husband and found discrepancy in the admitted income of the husband and the amount reflected in the balance sheet. The written objection of the husband was filed sometime in January 2018, when the husband on oath admitted his income as Rs.5 lakhs per annum. Whereas, the total income reflected in the balance sheet was around Rs.1.25 lakhs. The learned court, although, was conscious of the discrepancy in the income and found some inconsistencies in the balance sheet as also the profit and loss account, yet as those were audited accounts, the learned court below granted maintenance pendente lite on the basis of the admission. It is true that the copy of the income tax returns of the husband relating to the assessment years of 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 etc., reflected income of Rs.5 lakhs and above as per the statements made by the husband in the written objection filed by the husband to the petition dated November 2, 2017, but, the income tax return filed by the husband pursuant to the liberty granted by this court, for the current years would show that the income had substantially reduced. However, the husband failed to establish before the learned court below, as to why interest free loans were advanced to three construction companies for an amount of Rs.42,58,000/- as reflected in the balance sheet produced by the husband. Moreover, in the balance sheet as it stood on March 31, 2019, it appears that loan of Rs.37,08,500.00/- advanced to Arghyadeep construction was reduced to 7,53,262.75/- which means almost Rs.30 lakhs was repaid to him, but the receipt of the amount was not posted in the balance sheet nor accounted for. However, this court is not here to undertake the task of scrutinizing the correctness of the balance sheet. However, this court is not here to undertake the task of scrutinizing the correctness of the balance sheet. Yet, the financial profile of the husband as reflected in the balance sheet would indicate that he has the financial ability and potential to pay an amount higher than Rs.10,000/-. It is also admitted that there are no children born to the couple. The husband has not been able to prove before the court that he incurred monthly expenses of Rs.20,000/- for his parents, despite being given an opportunity to produced documents relating to current income and expenses. Moreover, it appears from the balance sheet as on March 31, 2018, that the father Amal Das had loaned Rs.4,20,000/- to the opposite party. Thus the father was capable of looking after himself and his wife. Admittedly the opposite party could not prove that the petitioner had any income. 10. The contention of the wife with regard to the three storeyed house, godown, foreign holidays/vacation, savings and investments and the expensive watches, branded clothes etc. have not been controverted. Such life style of the husband is thus accepted by the court. In this case, even if the current income of the husband went down for the assessment year 2018- 2019 and 2019-2020, yet, the financial potentiality and ability of the husband was more than what is reflected in the income tax return. Thus, while disposing of an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, the income, financial ability, status of husband and the status of the wife prior to separation and also the requirement of the wife for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, rent, utility bills etc. should be taken into account. The surrounding circumstances and the luxurious life style and investments of the husband, does not evoke the confidence of the court to totally believe that the actual income of the husband was that what was reflected in the income tax returns. Taking the admitted drawings of the husband to be Rs.5.10 lakhs per annum, (which was more or less close to Rs 5 lakhs as per his own affidavit) and the net profit as Rs.1,83,881.12/-, as per the balance sheet, the maintenance pendente lite of Rs.10,000/- is not justified. It is a general principle that maintenance pendente lite should vary between 1/3rd to 1/5th of the income of the husband. It is a general principle that maintenance pendente lite should vary between 1/3rd to 1/5th of the income of the husband. The savings and investments made by the husband as reflected in his balance sheet is sufficient for the husband to provide for emergency expenses for himself and his parents. The drawings of Rs.5.10 lakhs, along with the net profit of Rs.1,83,881.12 as per balance sheet amounts to approximately Rs.7,00,000/-, that is, Rs.58,333/- per month. Something between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the amount would come to Rs.16,000/-. If the said amount is granted to the wife, the husband would still have disposable income of approximately Rs.42,000/- per month. The husband has not produced any document to show that he has any other expenditure apart from his personal expense. 11. The Delhi High Court in Radhika Narang v. Karun Raj Narang, (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, 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, (2006) 2 CalLT 85 (HC)). 12. 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, (2009) 1 CalHN 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." 13. In Soma Chowdhury (Sarkar) v. Pradip Kumar Chowdhury, (2009) 1 CalHN 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." 13. 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. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 4 RCR(Civ) 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1971) AIR SC 234 approved the principle enunciated in Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar, (1929) AIR 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) 6 SCC 88 : 1995 3 RRR 632 held that 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 v. Punni Devi, (1995) 6 SCC 88 : 1995 3 RRR 632 held that 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, (1960) AIR SC 1343 , held that maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and raiment. 16. In my opinion, the wife should be entitled to the same standard of living to which she was used to in her matrimonial home. Living at the mercy of her father at the parental home is not the ideal situation in which an estranged wife should be forced to continue in. The husband should also provide for the expenses of a rental accommodation and other expenses on account of utility bills etc. to the wife. Thus, in my opinion, the learned court below erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendete lite, payable from the date of the application for the reasons stated hereinabove. This court deems it fit to award Rs.16,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance pendente lite, payable from the date of application month by month every month. Payment will commence from April 5, 2020 and thereafter payable within the 5th of every succeeding month. Upon adjustment of the amounts, if any, paid pursuant to the direction of this court earlier, the arrears shall be paid in five equal instalments. First of such instalment should be paid within April 30, second, third, fourth and fifth instalments to be paid within June 30, August 31, October 31 and December 31, 2020 respectively. There is no interference with the amount granted by the learned court below as litigation cost. 17. This revisional application is allowed. 18. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat Certified Copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.