SATISH CHANDRA DWIVEDI Vs. MANJU DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law arises for consideration in these revisions, were heard analogously and shall stand disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The imperative facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned order are as under:-

(3.) Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant in both the revisions, while criticizing and castigating the impugned order would submit that order of the jurisdictional civil Court granting decree of divorce particularly on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 is a decision of competent civil Court within the meaning of Section 127 (2) of the Code, therefore, the order granting maintenance deserves to be annulled. Alternatively, she would further submit that even otherwise the order increasing the allowance of monthly maintenance has no basis as change in the circumstances has not been clearly established by the non-applicant, and therefore, on the aforesaid two grounds the impugned order passed by the family Court deserves to be'set-aside.