The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the jurisdiction to revise the maintenance amount under the General Clauses Act, even in the absence of an express provision in the Hindu Marriage Act.

These two revision petitions are at the instance of the petitioner in I.A.Nos.2597 of 2006 and 2178 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court, Chennai, whereby and whereunder the application in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 filed for the purpose of enhancing the maintenance was allowed in part and the application in I.A.No.2178 of 2008 filed again for enhancing the maintenance was closed.

The Facts:-

2. The proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.1985 of 2002 was preferred by the respondent against the revision petitioner praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 5-09-2001. According to the respondent, the petitioner has been suffering from such mental disorder and to such an extent that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. The respondent has also detailed the reasons which made him to file the application for divorce, which according to him was the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings.

4. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner by filing counter. It was her consistent case that she was not suffering from any kind of mental disorder so as to enable the respondent to obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage.

5. During the pendeny of the divorce proceedings, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.468 of 2002 praying for interim maintenance. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Judge as per order dated 21. 2005 and the respondent was directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month.

6. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 seeking enhancement of the maintenance to Rs.5000/-per month. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter. The said application though filed as early as on 37. 2006 was not taken up for final disposal.

7. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.2178 of 2008 seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1500/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent filed counter in the said application also, opposing the maintenance claimed by the petitioner.

8. Even though the second application in I.A.No.2178 of 2008 was pending, the learned trial Judge took up the application in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 and as per order dated 111. 2008 enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1500/-to Rs.2000/- per month from the date of petition viz., 37. 2006 with a further enhancement to Rs.2500/- from the date of order. The application filed subsequently in I.A.N.2178 of 2008 was closed in view of the enhancement made as per order dated 111. 2008 in I.A.No.2597 of 2006.

9. The order dated 111. 2008 in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 is the subject matter in CRP (PD).No.651 of 2009. The order dated 111. 2008 in I.A.No.2178 of 2008 closing the application on account of the order in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 is the subject matter in CRP.No.241 of 2009.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended inter alia thus:-

Submissions:-

(a) The application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.2597 of 2006 as early as on 37. 2006 was kept in cold storage by the Family Court Judge, which made her to file the subsequent application in I.A.No.2178 of 2008. Therefore when a subsequent application was filed for the grant of substantial amount by way of maintenance, the learned Judge was obliged to take up the subsequent application. However very strangely the learned Judge took up the application filed earlier wherein only a sum of Rs.5,000/- was claimed as maintenance and awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent application contains further details, which includes the higher salary received by the respondent and as such the said application should have been taken up instead of the earlier application.

(b) The learned trial Judge granted a paltry sum of Rs.2,500/-as maintenance though even as pe