The right to receive maintenance allowance for a divorced woman cannot be restricted to the period of Iddat only and should continue until her remarriage, if any, and the cost of living increase justifies the enhancement of maintenance allowance.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8/05/1990 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow allowing an application of the appellant for enhancement of maintenance allowance.

( 2 ) THE appellant made an application against her husband, Mohd. Rafiq, respondent for grant of maintenance allowance to herself and her two minor children, u/ S. 125, Cr. P. C. The application was allowed on 18/07/1984 and maintenance allowance was granted to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month and to her two minor children each at the rate of Rs. 75. 00 per month. The order was confirmed by this court on 17/08/1985 with the modification that the amount of maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs. 200 / - per month for the appellant and Rs. 50. 00 per month for each of the two children. The appellant thereafter applied for enhancement of the maintenance allowance on the ground that the cost of living has increased and the children have become grown up and are now receiving education. The application for enhancement was contested by by the respondent on the ground that he has divorced the appellant and the application is not maintainable. The respondent did not, however, appear on the date fixed for the hearing of the application. It was heard ex parte and on the basis of the statement of the appellant, which was recorded in the matter, the application for enhancement was allowed by the Family Court in the following terms :"the application is hereby allowed exparte. Applicant No. 1 will get Rs. 300. 00 per month from the opposite party instead of Rs. 200. 00 per month up to the completion of Iddat period of divorce that is 1-8-88. Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 will get Rs,150/- (one hundred and fifty only) instead of Rs. 50 / - per month each from the opposite party towards their maintenance subject to adjustment of amount already received. The opposite party will pay the above amount of maintenance to all the applicants from the date of the application of the applicants for enhancement of their maintenance allowance, that is 9-10-87. "

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Family Court has erred in directing that the maintenance allowance shall be payable to the appellant up to the completion of Iddat period only. He has referred to sub-sec. (3) of S. 127, Cr. P. C. which provides that where any order has been made under S. 125 in favour of a woman, who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied, that the woman, after the date of divorce, has remarried, cancel such order from the date of her remarriage. On the basis of this provision the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has a right to receive maintenance allowance from the respondent until her remarriage.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has been divorced and hence there is no justification for enhancement of the maintenance allowance granted to her.

( 5 ) WE find that the appellant has not challenged the finding recorded by the Family Court that the appellent has been divorced by the respondent. So the matter relating to enhancement of maintenance allowance is to be considered on the basis of this finding. According to the provisions of Section 125 (3) (e) the right to receive maintenance allowance cannot be restricted to the period of Iddat only in the case of a diverced woman. Learned counsel for the appllent is, therefore, right in his submission that no such restriction should have been imposed by the Family Court and instead, it should have been provided that the appellant shall continue to be paid maintenance allowance until her remarriage, if any. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respondent and we find that the Family Court has given good reasons for the enhancement of allowance granted to the appellant and her two children earlier. The cost of