The court can enhance the maintenance awarded to a wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, considering the increase in the husband's salary, the rise in the price of basic amenities and necessities, and the wife's medical expenses.

1. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 89 dated April 05, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009, by which an application for enhancement of maintenance is disposed of.

2. Admittedly the husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage way back in the year 2009, inter alia, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The wife after entering appearance claimed maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was disposed of by awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It further appears that the wife has also approached the Judicial Magistrate with an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereupon a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month had been awarded.

3. While disposing of an application under Section 24 of the said Act, the Court found that the gross salary of the husband was Rs.27,000/- and odd per month and further held that the wife was entitled to a sum calculated on the basis of 1/5th of the total income and awarded the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Apart from the same the Trial Court also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

4. The said application was disposed of on 13th January, 2012, but thereafter it does not seem to this Court that the suit really proceeded in a pace as expected to be in a matrimonial cause.

5. From the impugned order it appears that the suit has virtually reached the stage of trial and naturally at this juncture an application was taken out for enhancement of maintenance by the wife. It is alleged in the petition that during those interregnum period the income of the husband has increased considerably and in order to meet the needs required for day to day sustenance the amount of maintenance awarded earlier is insufficient and becomes unreasonable and, therefore, is required to be enhanced.

6. It is undeniable that the monthly salary of the husband has increased by passage of time. It is held by the Trial Court that the net amount, which the husband takes home is Rs.38,000/- per month, although the gross salary is Rs.42,000/- and odd. The Court after taking into account the increase in the price of the goods enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month.

7. The learned advocate for the petitioner is very much vocal in his submission that the Court has not recorded any reason why the amount as claimed by the wife is not reasonable. The breakup of the expenditure has been jotted down in the application for maintenance. It is further submitted that the Court by one stroke of pen have rejected the claim towards the litigation cost without assigning any reasons.

8. On perusal of the impugned order it appears to this Court that the Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the wife had denied Binapani Karmakar to be the mother of the husband. An exception has been taken that if a lady can deny the status of a mother such lady does not deserve any latitude or leniency from the Court.

9. I do not subscribe to such opinion as expressed by the Trial Court, as those cannot be the factor for denial of maintenance to the wife, if the same is statutorily recognized under the Act.

10. In the instant case it appears that the monthly salary of the husband has increased considerably and the quantum of maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be enhanced after deducting the amount of maintenance awarded in other proceedings.

11. What the wife in fact got is a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month since the year 2012. It is undeniable that the monthly salary has increased considerably and it is a finding of the Court that the husband takes home a sum of Rs.38,000/- per month. The father of the wife is no more in this world. The mother is getting family pension and had gifted the house owned by her to her son, namely the brother of the wife. The wife is admittedly residing in the said house and, therefore, cannot be