SOUMA GHOSH vs SOURISH GHOSH

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-
The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

CO 2172 of 2026

SOUMA GHOSH
VS
SOURISH GHOSH

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya
Mr. Himadree Ghosh.

For the Opposite : Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
Party Mr. Souvik Das
Ms. Trina Ghosh
Mr. Rudranil Das
Delivered On : 12.11.2026

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:
1. The present revisional application has arisen out of orders passed in
matrimonial suit.
2. Being dissatisfied with the orders dated 13.03.2024, 30.08.2025 and
24.06.2026 the petitioner wife has preferred the revisional application.
Through the order dated 13.03.2024 the learned Trial Court had
enhanced the amount of maintenance pendente lite to Rs. 20,000/-
from Rs. 14,000/- which was earlier being paid by the husband as per
the order of the Court. Through the said order the husband was

2

further directed to bear 50% share of the educational expenses of their
son.
Thereafter vide order dated 30.08.2025 the said Trial Court rejected
the prayer made through the petition dated 14.05.2024 filed by the
wife seeking her husband that is the father of the child to bear the
educational expenses of their son, which was considered and the
learned Court had come to the opinion that the expenses have already
been made by the respondent wife knowing fully her capacity to do so.
The said order being No. 177 dated 13.03.2024 has not been challenged
before any higher forum as such the prayer was rejected.
Thereafter another application dated 18.12.2025 was filed and through
the said application the petitioner wife has prayed for enhancement of
alimony pendente lite and maintenance for herself as well as arrear of
maintenance of his son. Thereby claiming that the monthly salary of
the opposite party husband was Rs. 65,000/- per month earlier and on
the basis of Rs. 65,000/- per month the learned Trial Court had
directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife and
had also directed to bear 50% share of the educational expenses of
their son. Through the said application it has also been stated that the
wife has come to know that the income of the husband has enhanced
for the financial year 2024-25. The husband has earned Rs.
31,98,116/- , it has further been mentioned that due to increase in
market price and expense of education of their son, the monthly

3

maintenance is required to be enhanced as such the petitioner wife has
prayed for Rs. 90,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
Through the impugned order the learned Court has rejected the
prayer sought for by the wife on the ground that if educational
expense of their son increases, automatically the petitioner husband
has to pay 50% of the expense and the said Trial Court has not felt it
necessary to increase the amount of alimony pendente lite .

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the
wife does nothing and the order of Rs. 20,000/- per month which was
fixed as pendente lite was on the basis of the submission of the learned
counsel representing the husband wherein the learned counsel had
submitted that the husband is earning Rs. 65,000/- per month but
with the passage of time it has revealed that the husband has earned
Rs. 31,98,116/- during the financial year 2024-25, so automatically
the husband presently is earning much more than the said sum
which he was earning at the time of passing of the order of Rs
20,000/- as maintenance pendente lite per month in favour of the wife,
in such circumstance, the wife has been compelled to pray for
enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite . The learned Counsel
initially had submitted that the husband is not paying fully the
expenses which is being borne for the education of their son but
during argument the learned counsel on behalf of the wife has

4

restricted himself only to the prayer of enhancing the amount pendente
lite considering the enhancement of salary of the husband.
4. Per contra , the learned counsel representing the husband has
produced a pay slip for the month of July 2026 wherefrom it transpires
that the husband/ opposite party is earning Rs. 1,92,994/- per month.
The learned counsel has further submitted that the husband is
bearing 50% of the educational expenses of their son and there is no
arrear to that effect.
5. From the contention of the learned counsels representing the petitioner
wife and the opposite party husband it transpires that the suit is at the
stage of argument and the opposite party husband has been paying 50%
share in respect of the education of their son. Now the issue comes
down to only whether the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 20,000/-
per month which is being paid by the husband is to be enhanced or not.
6. From the documents furnished it transpires that the husband is
earning Rs. 1,92,994/- per month and it also transpires that the
husband is bearing 50% of the educational expenses of their son. On
perusal of the educational expenses for the son it transpires that
during the second year of the B-Tech course, which extended from
01.04.2024 till 31.03.2025, there was total expenditure of Rs.
3,92,300/-. For the third year course which extended from 01.04.2025
to 31.03.2026 the total expenditure was Rs. 4,15,300/- while for the
fourth year which extended from 01.04.2025 till 16.08.2026 the total

5

expense was Rs. 4,25,720/-. As such the monthly expense for the son
is Rs. 35,477/- per month (approximately). So the opposite party
husband is paying Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.
35,000/- for his son amounting Rs. 55,000/- per month.
7. Taking into consideration the facts that the opposite party husband is
earning Rs. 1,92,994/- per month as net pay and the opposite party
being the father is bearing 50% share of the educational expenses of the
son which is amounting to Rs. 35,000/- per month approximately and
also taking into consideration that the petitioner wife has to lead her life
commensurate to the status which she used to live at her matrimonial
home and also abiding by the principles laid down by an Hon'ble
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Rajnesh
versus Neha and another published at (2021) 2 SCC 324 , this court
is of the view that Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) be
paid by the opposite party husband to the petitioner /wife as
maintenance pendente lite , from the date of filing of the application
seeking enhancement of the same.
8. As regards to payment at the enhanced rate that is Rs. 35000/- it shall
commence from this month that is the month of November 2026 and as
regards to the arrear amount which has accrued since the filing of the
application, the said amount be paid in four equal installments
commencing from the month of December 2026 and shall be paid
during the succeeding months.

6

9. The present application being CO 2172 of 2026 is disposed of with
th
the aforementioned modification of the impugned order dated 24 of
June 2006 to this extent only.
10. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the
judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court.
11. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)