The court emphasized the wide discretionary power conferred on the court by S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pass orders for maintenance pendente lite and costs of the proceeding, and the court's power to modify or vary its order awarding interim maintenance on proof of changed circumstances.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE core question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Court has jurisdiction to revise its order granting interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding to the wife during pendency of a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, "the Act" ). The answer to the question depends on interpretation of the provision in S. 24 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case relevant for the present proceeding may be stated thus: on the petition filed by the opposite party for divorce against the petitioner O. S. No. 139 of 1984 has been registered; it is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. On the application filed by the petitioner for herself and for her minor son the learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 20-11-87 in Misc. Case No. 88 of 1985 directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 250/- per month towards interim maintenance and Rs. 100/- towards expenses of the proceeding. There was considerable delay on the part of the opposite party to comply with the order; the matter was carried to this Court and under the order of this Court the opposite party has paid to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and the monthly maintenance till December, 1990. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed the application for enhancement of maintenance and expenses of the proceeding alleging, inter alia, that in the meantime there have been material changes in the circumstances necessitating revision of the previous order. According to the petitioner the changes in the circumstances are that the opposite party, an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India who was then drawing monthly salary of Rs. 675/- is now drawing Rs. 2500/- per month; the petitioner is suffering from gastric trouble and needs extra funds for her treatment; the minor son of the parties is to be sent to school and etc. The petitioner further prayed that till her application for enhancement of maintenance and litigation expense is disposed of she should not be directed to file her written statement in the suit.

( 3 ) THE application was contested by the opposite party on the ground of its maintain ability as well as on merit.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 19-11-90 rejected the petitioner's application as not maintainable and directed her to file written statement in the suit. This order is being assailed in the revision petition.

( 5 ) AT the commencement of hearing of the case it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of this case the petitioner filed her written statement. Therefore, her plea that she should not be directed to file her written statement till her application for enhancement of maintenance and expenses of the proceeding is disposed of no longer arises for consideration.

( 6 ) ON perusal of the impugned order it appears that the main reason given by the learned Subordinate Judge in support of his finding that the application is not maintainable is that S. 24 of the Act does not contemplate filing of successive applications for interim maintenance and costs of the proceeding and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for enhancement of the amounts already granted by it. In view of his finding regarding maintainability the learned Subordinate Judge did not consider the application on merit.

( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances discussed in the preceding paragraphs the question formulated earlier arises for consideration. Considering the language of S. 24, the intent and purpose behind the said provision, I am of the view that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is unsustainable. Before discussing the point I would like to clarify that it is not in dispute that the application claiming maintenance filed earlier as well as the application for enhancement of the amount were filed by the petitioner for herself and for her minor son. This has a bearing on the question