The Indian Divorce Act allows for the enhancement of alimony for the wife under Section 37, but does not provide for making provisions for children who are no longer minors.

Reilly, J.

1. In 1921 the respondent in A.S. No. 169 of 1927 obtained a decree under the Indian Divorce Act of judicial separation from her husband, the appellant. The husband was then ordered to pay Rs. 120 a month to the wife for her own maintenance and Rs. 30 a month to her for the maintenance of each of their four children. In O.P. No. 44 of 1926 on the District Judges file the wife prayed that the amount to be paid for her maintenance by the husband should be increased to Rs. 260 a month, and in O.P. No. 43 of 1926 the children applied for an increase of the maintenance allowances to be paid by their father for them to Rs. 300 a month in all. The District Judge disposed of both petitions in one judgment. He found that the children were no longer minors under the Indian Divorce Act and that therefore their father could not be ordered to pay maintenance allowances for them under Section 42 of the Act. But he made an order raising the alimony to be paid to the wife to Rs. 310 a month, including in his calculation amounts required for the maintenance and education of the children and Rs. 160 a month for the wife herself. The husband appeals in A.S. No. 169 of 1927 against the District Judges order so far as it relates to the wife herself and in A.S. No. 201 of 1927 so far as it relates to the children.

2. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar for the husband contends first, that, the alimony for the wife having been originally fixed under Section 37 of the Act at Rs. 120 a month, the District Judge had no power to raise its amount. Section 37 does not in express words provide any power to increase the alimony of a wife once fixed. Mr. Mocket for the wife replies that since 1907 that power has been provided in England by the Statutes which govern the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court in such matters and from 1866 to 1907 it was provided by the Statutory Rules and Regulations of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes; and that power can be exercised by the Court in India because Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that High Courts and District Courts shall act and give relief on principles and rules which in the opinion of the said Courts are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief. Mr. Mockets extreme contention that "rules" in Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act means the Statutory Rules in farce for the time being in England is in my opinion clearly untenable, If Statutory Rules in force in England were meant, there would be no question of the Courts in this country acting on rules which in their opinion were as nearly as may be conformable to those rules. The provision would have been either that the statutory rules in force in England were to be observed in this country or that the rules to be made under Section 62 of the Indian Divorce Act were to be as nearly as may be conformable to the statutory rules in force in England. In my opinion the words "Principles and rules" in Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act mean principles and rules of law, of evidence, of interpretation, of practice, and of procedure but not statutory provisions nor statutory rules. The principles and rules to be applied are by the words of the section made subject to the provisions of the Act; they can never run counter to the Act. Mr. Mocket suggests that they may fill up gaps left in the Act. But I am inclined to agree with Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar that they can neither cut down the provisions of the Act nor supply any form of relief not provided by the Act. However I do not think it necessary to discuss that question in any detail on this occasion as the present case appears to me to turn on other considerations. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar in the course of his argument has also compared the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act with the Statutes and the statutory rules in force in England from time to time since