IMPORTANT POINT
Wife is entitled to get a decent amount of compensation.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is divorced wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in an application under Section 25(2) of Hindu Marriage Act registered as HMP No. 30 of 2005 whereby her prayer for enhancement of maintenance allowance/alimony amount from Rs. 450/- per month to Rs. 6000/- per month has been dismissed.

2. The facts are not in controversy. The petitioner was admittedly wife of the respondent. The petitioner-wife had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of judicial separation. The petition was allowed by learned District Judge Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti districts at Mandi on 31.1.1983. The respondent-husband has filed an appeal registered as FAO No. 76 of 1983 in this Court against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Mandi. During the course of proceedings in the appeal before this Court the petitioner and respondent have agreed to dissolve the marriage by a decree of customary divorce. The divorce deed in original has been produced in evidence by the petitioner and marked as Ext.DA. In terms of this document, the parties mutually agreed for payment of Rs. 450/- per month towards alimony/maintenance allowance to the petitioner by her husband, the respondent, till her death or she remarried. There is no controversy so as to the payment of Rs. 450/- per month by the respondent to the petitioner for her maintenance. However, her grouse is that with the passage of time the income of her husband, the respondent, is increased, therefore the monthly maintenance Rs. 450/- also deserves to be enhanced accordingly and as such, in the petition under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act she filed in the trial Court claimed a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month by way of such enhancement.

3. Learned trial Judge has framed the following issues in the petition:—

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the alimony amount, if so, to what extent? OPR

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Whether the petition is lamentably delayed and she is estopped from filing the petition? OPR

4. Relief.

4. Learned trial Judge after having taken on record the evidence and also hearing the parties on both sides has arrived at a conclusion that since the petitioner at the time of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of customary divorce had agreed to receive Rs. 450/- per month till her death or remarriage as maintenance allowance and that there is no stipulation in the divorce deed Ext.DA that she will have right for further enhancement of the maintenance allowance, therefore, her claim for enhancement of the alimony/maintenance allowance is not sustainable. The petition, as such was ordered to be dismissed vide order under challenge in this appeal.

5. After hearing the matter at length, in the light of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record as well as the law cited at the Bar, it would not be improper to conclude that the agreement qua the payment of a sum of Rs. 450/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance allowance in terms of the divorce deed Ext.DA cannot be treated as an estoppal to debar the petitioner for seeking enhancement of the amount of alimony in the changed circumstances. The law on the issue is no more res integra. The High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Harilal Sarkar v. Subhra Sarkar, (2016) 165 AIC 784 : 2016 SCC OnLine Tri 356 a case having similar facts has held that an order qua maintenance allowance based on the settlement/compromise during the course of proceedings in a divorce petition has to be treated an order of maintenance passed under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such a petition for enhancement of the amount filed under Section 25(2) of the Act is maintainable and not barred by the principle of estoppal. It is