An application for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite is maintainable even after the disposal of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, unless the power to do so has been explicitly taken away by the statute.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present application for review of the order passed by this Court dated 29th May, 2023 in CO No. 1716 of 2023.

2. The petitioner has filed the Civil Revisional Application being C.O. No. 1716 of 2023 challenging the order passed by the Learned District Judge in Matrimonial Suit No. 56 of 2017 dated 8th May, 2023 wherein the Learned District Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance pendent lite.

3. By an order dated 29th May, 2023, this Court had dismissed the revisional application on the ground that this Court did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that this Court while dismissing the civil revisional application has not considered the affidavit of assets filed by both the parties before the Learned Court of District Judge along with the application filed for enhancement of the alimony pendente lite.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that in the affidavit of assets, the respondent has declared his monthly income as Rs.3,74,950/-per month which this Court has not considered while dismissing the revisional application.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that in the affidavit of assets filed by the petitioner, her monthly income is only Rs.15,500/-per month, though the monthly expenditure is Rs.80,700/-per month.

7. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that this Court has not considered that the status of the petitioner is not at par with that of the respondent.

8. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that this Court had dismissed the civil revisional application of the petitioner without considering that the alimony amount granted to the petitioner is not sufficient for the petitioner to lead the same standard of living as that of her husband.

9. Mr. Bhattacharya relied upon the judgment reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7 Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors.) and submitted that the Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged to under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions.

10. Mr. Bhattacharya relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 SCC Online Del 622 (Bharat Hegde vs. Saroj Hegde) and submitted that for self employed person or persons employed in an unorganised sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country and determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The Court has to take a general view.

11. Mr. Chakraborty further relied upon the judgment reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 (Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors.) and submitted that if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, review application is maintainable.

12. Per contra, Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, Learned Advocate representing the opposite party submitted that the review application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law as there is no error apparent on the face of record.

13. Ms. Mukherjee submitted that the Learned District Judge while deciding the application filed by the petitioner for enhancement has considered the affidavit of assets of both the parties, earlier judgment passed by this Court and the submissions made by both the parties and had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

14. Ms. Mukherjee submitted that this Court while passing the order dated 29th May, 2023, categorically held that this Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge and also observed that the dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps for enhancement of the maintenance if occasion arise.

15. Ms. Mukherjee submitted that there is no ground to review the order dated 29th May, 2023. She further submitted that the review cannot be