1. Heard.

2. ' Rule '.

3. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

4. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He is aggrieved by the order dated 07/09/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patoda, Dist. Beed, enhancing the amount of maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondent to Rs. 2,500/- [Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month from Rs. 1,500/-[Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only] per month. The petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision of the said order, but, even the revision came to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

5. Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention. According to him, the respondent was not entitled to seek any enhancement of the maintenance amount, as the amount had been fixed pursuant to the compromise arrived at by and between the parties in the year 2000 itself. He submitted that the terms of the compromise were filed in the Court of the Magistrate and accepted by both the parties. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the fact that the question of maintenance had been fully and finally settled by and between the parties, the respondent was not entitled to seek enhancement of the amount of maintenance, that was agreed upon as per the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. According to him, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration either by the learned Magistrate or by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter.

7. The document containing the written terms of compromise arrived at between the parties is annexed to the petition as and by way of Exh. A. It does appear that as per clause No. 3 of the document [Exh. A], the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/ [Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month as and by way of maintenance to the respondent herein. Clause No. 3 says that the said amount of maintenance would be paid between the first date and 9th date of every month.

8. Indeed, it does appear that the parties had accordingly agreed.

9. The question is, however, whether this clause or this agreement, reflected in the said clause, would prevent the petitioner from claiming enhanced amount of maintenance for ever and irrespective of other relevant factors.

10. It would be necessary to see how the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have dealt with this aspect of the matter. In para No. 7 of his order, the learned Magistrate observed that, he was taking judicial notice of the inflation and the fact that the cost of living has gone up considerably.

11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that, the salary of the petitioner must have been increased considerably due to the implementation of 6th Pay Commission and that the petitioner had not chosen to produce his salary slip to show how much salary he actually gets.

12. Thus, the view taken by the Magistrate, as also by the Court of Sessions, appears to be that due to the increase in the cost of living and obvious increase in the salary, which the petitioner receives, the amount of maintenance which the respondent was liable to be received, ought to be enhanced.

13. I have carefully gone through the document at Exh. 'A'.

Though it appears that this document was executed as and by way of full and final settlement between the parties, it does not categorically state that the monthly amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent would not be enhanced at any time. In my opinion, in case of even full and final settlement, which consists of periodical payments to be made by one party to the another for an indefinite period,the cognizance of the increase in the cost of living and the increase in the income of the party, who is to pay the sum, can very well be taken into consideration. T