Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh (Alwar) in Civil Misc. Case No.76/2006, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act of 1955'), the petitioner-wife has instituted the present writ application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance along with an interest @ 15% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Kachhawa, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has vehemently aruged that the respondent-husband instituted petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance for her minor daughter and herself as well as expenses of the proceedings instituted before the Court.

3. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-husband is a Government Employee and is in receipt of gross pay of Rs. 17,740/- per month, after implementation of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, and therefore, the amount of maintenance allowed vide order dated 20th January, 2009, needs to be enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4. It is further contended that the Court below committed gross error in not according ?rd of the amount of the salary of the respondent-husband, as maintenance or Rs. 10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner-wife.

5. Per contra; resisting the claim of the petitioner-wife for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on her application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955; learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband raised preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of the writ application for the petitioner-wife has suppressed material facts and thus has played fraud on Court. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner-wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Mathura (U.P.) on 4th July, 2005 and was allowed interim maintenance @ 2500/- per month as is evident from the order dated 26th November, 2008. Subsequently, the main petition was disposed off with an order for maintenance @ 3500/- on 16th November, 2010, which has been placed on record as Annexure-R/1-1.

6. Learned counsel would further contend that on a Criminal Revision Petition No.518/2010, against the order dated 16th November, 2010, preferred by the petitioner-wife, the amount of maintenance was enhanced by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-IX, Mathura (U.P.) by an ex-parte order, to Rs. 5,000/- per month, as would be evident from the order. A copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-R-1/2.

7. The respondent-husband, aggrieved of the ex-parte order dated 20th September, 2011, preferred a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 1980/2012). The High Court at Allahabad, vide order dated 29th March, 2012, stayed the operation of the judgment and orders dated 20th September, 2011 and 16th November, 2010, subject to payment of 50% of the arrears of maintenance within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 29th March, 2012. In addition, the respondent-husband has been directed to continue to pay the current maintenance @ 4,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife and the daughter on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month.

8. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-husband, in compliance of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, has paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and is also continuing to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month in compliance of the directions dated 29th March, 2012, issued by the High Court at Allahabad. Hence, the writ application preferred by the petitioner-wife for enhancement of amount of enhancement with reference to same cause of action and on the same set of grounds is absolutely misconceived.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on