The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conduct of the parties and the change in circumstances are crucial factors in determining the variation of maintenance orders under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage, the correctness of an order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 10-11-2004 on an application moved under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter ?the act?) has been challenged.

( 2 ) THE parties to the proceedings, viz the Appellant and the first respondent, were married to each other on 29-5-1985 in accordance with Hindu rites, in Delhi. The appellant was working as a Scientific Officer with the rajasthan Power Station, Rawalbhata, Rajasthan. The second respondent, Ms. Jyotsna, was born to the first respondent during the subsistence of the marriage, on 21-4-1987. The appellant instituted divorce proceedings, on grounds of cruelty and desertion, before the District Judge, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. The appellant levelled allegations of adultery against the first respondent, and these apparently influenced the District Judge to dismiss an application for maintenance filed by her. Criminal proceedings too were initiated by the first respondent, and ultimately she approached the Supreme Court, for transfer of the divorce proceedings pending in Rajasthan.

( 3 ) THE transfer petition was disposed off on 11-4-1991, recording agreement of the parties to end the disputes, and seek dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. During the course of the order of the Supreme Court, it set aside/ deleted the findings of the District Judge, Chittorgarh, regarding the allegations of adultery, and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to the first respondent and the child, Jyotsna; liberty was reserved to either party to seek variation of the order, on that score. Another order was passed on 3-10-1991, by the Supreme Court, inter alia, directing deletion of allegations that the child was born out of the living together of the parties. The petitioner appears to have declined to pay the maintenance amounts; this led to initiation of contempt proceedings, before the Supreme Court. On 8th August, 1994, the Court recorded a concession on his behalf the amount would be paid, and that he was not justified in refusing to pay the amounts on the ground that the first respondent had re-married. The appellant again approached the court, for modification of the direction in so far as it pertained to the direction to continue to pay the amount of Rs. 500/- per month. That application was rejected by order dated 24-8-1998. Earlier, another application had been rejected by the supreme Court in 1996.

( 4 ) IN the above background, the appellant filed an application under section 25 (2) for vacation of the order requiring him to pay the sum of Rs. 500/ -. The principal allegations were that the first respondent had remarried, and that the daughter did not bear the appellant's name, and that there was a discrepancy about the date of birth shown in the records, which justified the appellant's being relieved of the obligation. It was also averred that the appellant was no longer employed, as he had to leave the services on account of the humiliation faced due to his being implicated in criminal proceedings. It has was also contended that the appellant had re-married, and had two children, who had to be taken care. With his meagre means, the obligation of having to pay rs. 500/- is oppressive.

( 5 ) DETAILED proceedings were held before the Additional District Judge. Two reasoned orders were made, upon applications filed by the appellant, who also sought amendment. Eventually, after recording evidence, the learned additional District Judge passed the impugned order, declining the relief claimed. He reasoned that no change in the circumstances had been made out by the appellant, warranting decrease in the amount, or recall of the direction to pay Rs. 500/- to the respondents.

( 6 ) THE appellant had urged that Ms. Jyotsna had not disclosed him as her father, and instead, the maternal grandfather had been shown in the school certificate as the fat