The legal duty of the husband to maintain his wife, the discretion of the court in passing maintenance orders, and the need for early disposal of matrimonial cases to prevent prolonged litigation and deepen the agony of the parties.

V. Nath, J.

Heard Mr. L.N. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also the sole respondent Ms. Seema Singh who has appeared in-person and has made her submissions.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 26.04.2013 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 398/2010 whereby the learned court below has enhanced the quantum of interim maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month and allowed the amount of Rs. 20,000/- in lumpsum as admission fee of the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent. During the pendency of this application the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 430/2016) has been filed on 15.01.2016 praying for amendment in the main application by incorporating the relief for quashing the order dated 03.01.2015 passed in the aforesaid matrimonial case enhancing the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 12,000/- to 15,000/- per month.

3. The facts in detail in dispute between the parties need no notice in view of the limited nature of the controversy in the present proceeding. Suffice it to state that the petitioner and the sole respondent are legally married couple having a girl child borne out of their wedlock. The Matrimonial Case No. 398/2010 has been filed by the husband-petitioner for a decree of divorce against the wife-respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion with further relief for the custody of the daughter. During the pendency of the matrimonial case a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent for grant of interim maintenance. The said petition was allowed by order dated 21.02.2011 directing the petitioner to pay total amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month out of which Rs. 8,000/- was for the maintenance of the respondent and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was for the maintenance of the daughter by way of interim maintenance besides the direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- in lumpsum by way of litigation cost. Subsequently on 14.03.2012 a petition was filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for payment of Rs. 50,000/- in one lumpsum for the purpose of admission of the daughter in school and further for direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- for the maintenance of the daughter. It was averred in the petition that the amount which was allowed for maintenance of the child was inadequate in view of the prevailing heavy cost for admission in a good educational institution and the allied expenses therein.

4. The learned court below heard the parties and after taking into notice the cost to be incurred towards proper education and maintenance of the minor daughter aged about 5 years admittedly residing with the mother (respondent), the order has been passed on 26.04.2013 whereby the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month earlier granted for the maintenance of the daughter was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Besides the petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- in one lumpsum as admission fee for the daughter. This order has been initially assailed in the present application.

5. Subsequently it appears that the respondent had prayed before the court that though by order dated 26.04.2013 the learned court below had allowed the enhancement of interim maintenance but that was only with regard to the daughter and no order was passed with regard to the enhancement of the amount of maintenance to the respondent which prayer was still pending. The learned court below by order dated 03.01.2015 allowed the prayer of the respondent and enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to be paid to the respondent from Rs. 8,000/- per month to Rs. 11,000/- per month. By filing the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 430/2016) the petitioner has prayed to incorporate the relief for quashing this order dated 03.01.2015.

6. It appears that this application was earlier heard by this Court and by order dated 27.01.2016 this