LAXMI PRIYA ROUT Vs. KAMA PRASAD ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Court has jurisdiction to revise its order granting interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding to the wife during pendency of a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, "the Act"). The answer to the question depends on interpretation of the provision in S. 24 of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case relevant for the present proceeding may be stated thus: On the petition filed by the opposite party for divorce against the petitioner O. S. No.139 of 1984 has been registered; it is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. On the application filed by the petitioner for herself and for her minor son the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 20-11-87 in Misc. Case No. 88 of 1985 directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 250/- per month towards interim maintenance and Rs.100/- towards expenses of the proceeding. There was considerable delay on the part of the opposite party to comply with the order; the matter was carried to this Court and under the order of this Court the opposite party has paid to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and the monthly maintenance till December, 1990. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed the application for enhancement of maintenance and expenses of the proceeding alleging, inter alia, that in the meantime there have been material changes in the circumstances necessitating revision of the previous order. According to the petitioner the changes in the circumstances are that the opposite party, an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India who was then drawing monthly salary of Rs. 675/- is now drawing Rs. 2500/- per month; the petitioner is suffering from gastric trouble and needs extra funds for her treatment; the minor son of the parties is to be sent to school and etc. The petitioner further prayed that till her application for enhancement of maintenance and litigation expense is disposed of she should not be directed to file her written statement in the suit.

(3.) The application was contested by the opposite party on the ground of its maintain ability as well as on merit.