ORAL JUDGMENT : - Heard Mr. Srirang Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. A. S. Kilor, Learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22 - 42002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, whereby application moved by the applicant under section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, came to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the non - applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 114/90 against the applicant for recovery of post and future maintenance and "Stridhan". The claim made in the said suit was for Rs. 1,58,000/ - . In that suit, non - applicant alleged that she has no independent source of income to support her livelihood and therefore, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - per month.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant filed written statement and opposed the claim of the non - applicant for maintenance. It is contended that as the non - applicant herself had deserted the applicant, hence she had no right to claim maintenance. During the pendency of the said suit, the applicant and non - applicant decided to amicably settle the dispute and therefore, arrived at amicable settlement. The terms of the settlement were incorporated in the compromise pursis which was signed by the applicant and non - applicant and was filed on record in the said suit. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the issue was compromised, the trial Court on 20 - 7 - 1998 passed a compromise decree in terms of the said compromise pursis. It is contended that when the decree of compromise was passed by the trial Court, the non - applicant was only contributory lecturer, however, at the later point of time, she was made permanent lecturer in 1999 and started receiving substantial salary and therefore, she was not in need of maintenance amount. Since the non - applicant was started getting good salary, it was not necessary for the applicant to pay the maintenance amount as agreed as per the compromise decree. It is contended that on 21 - 10 - 2000 applicant filed for seeking modification of the compromise decree under section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as there was change in the circumstances. However, trial Court rejected the application of the applicant, hence the present revision application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that as per section 25 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, decree awarding maintenance can be altered subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration. It is contended that, in the instant case, at the time of passing of compromise decree, the non - applicant was in need of maintenance and therefore, the applicant agreed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1200/ - per month till her death w.e.f. 1 - 8 - 1998. However, at the later point of time, there was a material change in the circumstances, such as, non - applicant became permanent lecturer and started receiving substantial salary and therefore, in view of section 25 of the Act of 1956, the applicant was entitled to move the application for alteration of amount of maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that all these aspects are ignored by the Trial Court and wrongly rejected the application of the applicant and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1964 Madras 217, Seshi Ammal and another V. Thaiyu Ammal as well as decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1970, Amireddi Raka Gopala Rao and others V. Amireddi Sitharamamma and others.

6. Mr. Kilor, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order and has contended that the non - applicant has filed a suit fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document