24.08.2026 Sl.No.124 Ct.No. 655 pp C.O. 4545 of 2025 Bishnupada Biswas Vs. Rinki Biswas (Sarkar) Ms. Subhasree Patel, Ms. Shruti Mukhopadhyay ….for the petitioner. 1. Learned advocate representing the petitioner/husband is present. 2. This civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Misc. Case No.4 of 2024, whereby the application preferred by the opposite party/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came to be allowed. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife towards maintenance pendente lite. The learned Trial Court has further directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the opposite party/wife, subject to appropriate adjustment or set-off against any amount of maintenance, if already awarded to the 2 opposite party in any other proceeding between the parties. 4. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the materials placed before it, took note of the admitted position that the petitioner/husband is employed under the Central Government and earns approximately Rs.60,000/- per month. The learned Trial Court also considered the financial circumstances of the opposite party/wife and found no material on record to establish that she has any independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and meet the expenses of the matrimonial litigation. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/husband has sought to assail the quantum of maintenance as well as the direction for payment of litigation expenses. It is submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is excessive and that the financial liability imposed upon the petitioner has not been properly assessed. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the other liabilities and obligations of the petitioner while determining the amount payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the impugned order and the materials available on record. 7. The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to ensure that a spouse having no sufficient independent income is not prevented, by reason of financial incapacity, from effectively prosecuting or defending the matrimonial proceeding. While determining the quantum, the Court is required to have regard to the income and financial capacity of the parties, their respective circumstances and the reasonable requirements of the spouse seeking maintenance. The amount cannot be fixed mechanically; at the same time, the Court is also required to ensure that the order is fair and commensurate with the financial capacity of the spouse liable to pay. 8. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the admitted employment and income of the petitioner/husband. It is also not demonstrated from the materials on record that the opposite party/wife has any independent income or sufficient means of livelihood. In such circumstances, the direction 4 for payment of maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be without any basis or founded upon irrelevant considerations. 9. So far as the litigation expenses are concerned, the same have also been awarded keeping in view the necessity of enabling the opposite party/wife to effectively participate in the matrimonial proceeding. The direction is further subject to necessary adjustment or set-off against any maintenance amount that may have been awarded in any other proceeding, thereby avoiding duplication of monetary relief. 10. It is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not ordinarily substitute its own assessment for that of the Court below merely because another view regarding the quantum may be possible. Interference is warranted where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, committed a patent error of law, acted perversely or otherwise occasioned a manifest failure of justice. No such circumstance is found in the present case. 11. Having regard to the admitted income of the petitioner/husband, the absence of any material demonstrating independent income of 5 the opposite party/wife and the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, I find no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the instant civil revisional application is found to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)