IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement of the adult daughter to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the variation of alimony amount based on changes in circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the wife and is directed against the order no. 150 dated April 10, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 8th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 2007.

2. By the order impugned, the application for enhancement of alimony pendente lite at the instance of the wife/ petitioner stood rejected.

3. Facts giving rise to this civil revisional application, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

The parties got married on 28.01.1995. Out of the said wedlock two female children were born on 29.11.1995 and 10.10.1999. The husband/opposite party herein filed a Matrimonial Suit being no. 966 of 2005 which was subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 2007. An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “H.M. Act”) was allowed granting maintenance to the extent of Rs. 8000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 6000/- per month for the two daughters. The husband challenged the said order by filing a civil revision application being C.O.1791 of 2009 which was disposed of on 30.11.2012 directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs. 4000/-per month for wife and Rs. 3000/- per month for each of the two daughters.

4. The wife claimed that when the order for alimony was passed, the daughters were students of Class IX and Class IV respectively. The wife claimed that the elder daughter got admission in MBA Course for which a substantial amount is necessary for educational expenses. The younger daughter was pursuing 2nd year B.A. (Hons.) Course for which a substantial amount is necessary for educational expenses. Accordingly, the wife filed a petition for enhancement of alimony pendente lite claiming educational expenses for both the daughters to the extent of Rs. 12000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- per month for maintenance for the wife and the daughters and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation cost.

5. Husband contested the application for enhancement of alimony contending that the alimony already fixed is high and he would not be able to pay more than that amount. It was further stated that since the daughters are adults, they are not entitled to any alimony.

6. The learned trial judge rejected the application for enhancement of alimony pendente lite, by holding that there is no scope to interfere in the matter as the amount has been fixed by the High Court.

7. Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that a substantial amount is necessary for the educational expenses of the younger daughter who, after completing her graduation, is currently studying Masters in a reputed institution. He further submitted that the amount of alimony granted by the Hon’ble High Court is not sufficient for the support of herself and her younger daughter at present. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Jaiswal vs. Smt. Lila Jaiswal reported at AIR 1987 Cal 230 in support of his contention that the Court can grant interim maintenance to the children also in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. For the same proposition he also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7.

8. The learned advocate for the opposite party seriously disputed the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner. He contended that an adult unmarried daughter who does not suffer from any physical and/or mental abnormality or injury cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife can claim maintenance for herself and/or the minor children. He submitted that adult daughters can claim maintenance from her father only upon making an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptation and Maintenance Act, 1956. In support of his contention that claim