AD-1 Ct No.16 04.04.2025 (SSS) CO 3746 of 2024 Shri Arindam Chaudhuri Vs. Smt. Nanda Chaudhuri Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose, Ms. Lipika Nath, Mr. Anirban Basak, Mr. Aniruddha Bandyopadhyay ….For the Petitioner. Mr. Avishek Guha Mr. Subhajit Das ...For the Opposite Party. 1. During arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband repeatedly reiterates, despite several queries of court, that his client, the petitioner/husband, made an incorrect statement before the trial court while stating in his affidavit of assets that he is paying Rs.5,000/- per month for his son. It is submitted that the entire school fees of the son are being paid by the husband. This court amply warned leaned Counsel for the petitioner that his client would be guilty of perjury, for which proceedings may be drawn up, if he insists that the said statement before the court below in the husband’s affidavit of assets was erroneous. Despite the same, learned Counsel insists on repeating and reiterating that the said statement is not correct and his client, the petitioner, has been paying much higher amount for the son. 2. In view of such categorical admission on the part of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a deliberate and false statement in his affidavit of assets to the effect that he spends only Rs.5,000/- per month for the son, this court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge should immediately consider drawing up appropriate proceedings for perjury due to false statement of the petitioner/husband in the trial court in his affidavit of assets. 3. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, I find that the income of the wife has been held by the learned Trial Judge to be around Rs.58,501/- per month whereas the income of the husband, as per his current salary slip for May, 2024, as produced in the court below, is Rs.1,62,047/- per month. 4. Striking a balance between the two, we find that the husband earns about three times the wife. 5. The expenditure for the son, as disclosed in the affidavit of assets of the wife in the court below, which could have been a valid premise for the learned Trial Judge to pass the impugned order, is to the tune of Rs.56,536.90/- per month. 2 6. Although learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/wife submits that the food expenses of the son were not included in the said affidavit of assets, we find that, taking a pragmatic approach, the amount of Rs.56,000/- and odd per month would suffice to meet the expenses of the minor son who is about 12 years of age, on all aspects, including education, food, extra-curricular activities and other requirements. 7. Thus, the approximate proportion in which the expenditure for the son is required to be shared between the parties, keeping in view their respective incomes, would be in the ratio of 3:1. 8. Hence, since the amount of maintenance directed to be paid, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, is barely about 3/4th of the expenditure of the son, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Insofar as the litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the same, since the same is reasonable. 9. As such, CO 3746 of 2024 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) 3