S/L 94 27.08.2026 Court No.655 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 51 of 2026 Biswajit Ghosh Vs. Binu Ghosh Mr. Soham Banerjee, Ms. Shruti Mukhopadhyay. … for the Petitioner. 1. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner/husband is present. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2024, arising out of MAT Suit No. 724 of 2024. 3. The aforesaid Misc. Case was instituted pursuant to an application filed by the opposite party/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for an award of maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses. Upon consideration of the pleadings and materials placed before it, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application and award maintenance in favour of the opposite party/wife. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner/husband has approached this 2 Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner does not have sufficient or adequate income to comply with the direction for payment of the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court. It is contended that the quantum fixed by the learned Trial Court is beyond the financial capacity of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. 5. In the present case, although the petitioner has contended that he does not possess sufficient income to pay the amount awarded as maintenance, such contention, by itself, cannot be a sufficient ground for setting aside the order of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate, by placing cogent and reliable materials on record, that the learned Trial Court, while determining the amount of maintenance, had acted upon irrelevant considerations or had completely disregarded the relevant financial circumstances of the parties. Mere assertion regarding insufficiency of income, without adequate supporting materials establishing the actual financial position of the petitioner, cannot lead to the conclusion that the order suffers from perversity or material illegality. 6. On the other hand, it appears from the materials on record that no document has been produced before 3 the learned Trial Court, or placed before this Court, from which it can reasonably be concluded that the opposite party/wife has sufficient independent income or financial resources enabling her to maintain herself and meet the expenses of the matrimonial proceeding without the assistance contemplated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the absence of any reliable material establishing such independent means of the wife, the award of maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be unjustified merely on the basis of the husband's assertion regarding his own financial incapacity. 7. It is also required to be borne in mind that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. Such jurisdiction is not intended to function as a regular appellate jurisdiction for reassessing the evidence or substituting the view of the subordinate Court merely because another view may also be possible. Interference is warranted only where the order under challenge suffers from patent jurisdictional error, perversity, manifest arbitrariness, material irregularity, or gross failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. 8. Upon consideration of the impugned order as well as the materials placed before this Court, I find that the learned Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters prescribed by Section 24 of 4 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The impugned order does not disclose any patent jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I find no irregularity, perversity or material illegality in the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2024 arising out of MAT Suit No. 724 of 2024, which calls for interference by this Court. 10. The civil revisional application, accordingly, stands dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)