D/L- 20 24/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2788 of 2026 Arjun Mukherjee Vs. Anasua Roychoudhury Mr. Devansh Sonthalia Mr. Ayush Singhania ….for the petitioner Mr. Ivan Roy Mr. Kaustabh Banerjee ….for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband/petitioner and is directed against an order being no.31 dated May 20, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas. By the order impugned the learned trial judge has directed the husband/petitioner to pay alimony at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for the minor child and one time litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- with effect from the date of filing of the application. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband do not have any stable income as he has engaged in contractual service in a Shipping Company. He submits that the alimony fixed by the learned trial judge did not take into consideration the income earned by the wife/opposite party herein. He submits that though the opposite party/wife was earlier employed with CK Birla Hospital but now is employed at Peerless Hospital and her income is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month. 2 The learned advocate appearing for the wife/opposite party submits that the income tax returns annexed to this civil revisional application do not portray the correct figure as the husband/petitioner is earning in foreign currency and such income is exempted from the income tax. He further submits that the learned trial judge after considering the status of the husband fixed alimony pendente lite and the litigation cost. On a query of the Court, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/wife did not dispute the fact that presently the wife/opposite party is employed at Peerless Hospital and her monthly income is around Rs.45,000/-. Though the petitioner/husband claims that presently he does not have any income but in the affidavit of assets and liabilities it has been disclosed that the petitioner has taken a Home loan from State Bank of India of Rs.34,00,000/-; a Car loan from State Bank of India of Rs.6,00,000/- and one LIC loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. The affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the husband/petitioner also reflects that the husband is paying monthly installment on account of home loan to the extent of Rs.33,000/, on account of car loan to the extent of Rs.9307/- and for LIC to the extent of Rs.40,000/-. Thus it appears that the husband is paying more than a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month on account of equated monthly installment to liquidate the aforesaid 3 loan. Apart from that the petitioner has indicated the monthly expenses which he has to incur. In the light of the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the husband/petitioner, it is difficult for this Court to believe that the husband/petitioner is not earning a penny at present. Be that as it may, a father has to maintain his minor child. However, if both the parents are earning, the expenses of the child is to be shared between the parties in proportion of their respective income. Record reveals that the wife/opposite party has given a breakup of the expenses on account of the minor child which is Rs.34,191/-, which is appearing at page 125 of this civil revisional application. The learned trial judge while fixing the amount of alimony pendente lite to be paid by the husband for the minor child did not consider the fact that the wife/opposite party also has to share a portion of the expenses for the child. For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned insofar as the maintenance pendente lite for the minor child is concerned. The husband/petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife/opposite party for the minor child with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act. The rest amount on account of the expenses of the minor child has to be borne by the wife/opposite party herein. 4 It is, however, made clear that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the one time litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. With the above observations and directions, CO 2788 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)