IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Enhancement of interim maintenance – Family Court does not become functus officio after withdrawal of divorce petition and it can decide applications filed under Sections 24 and 26 of HMA, 1955 even after withdrawal.
(2) Obligation of a father towards his child does not end when child attains majority, even though he is still pursuing his studies.
(3) Maintenance to be awarded to wife should be commensurate with husband’s wherewithal – Quantification should be done in a manner that wife should be able to maintain herself comfortably.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J.— Preface

Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 16th August, 2018. Via the impugned judgment, the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Family Court’) disposed of an application filed byMrs Anju Jain (‘Wife’) under Sections 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (‘HMA’) seeking enhancement of interim maintenance granted earlier.

2. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 226/2018, has been filed by Mr Parvin Kumar Jain (‘Husband’) seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment, whereas MAT.APP. (F.C.) 120/2019, has been filed by theWife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court.

3. The Family Court, vide the impugned judgment, directed the Husband to pay the following amounts:-

(i) Rs. 1,15,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance to the Wife and the son of the parties from the date of filing the application for enhancement of maintenance i.e. 28th February, 2009 to 14th July, 2016, the date when the divorce petition was withdrawn by the Husband.

(ii) Rs.35,000/- per month to the son of the parties from 15th July, 2016 till the time he attains the age of 26 years or becomes financially independent, whichever is earlier. This amount shall be subject to increase by 10% after every two years starting from 28th May, 2019.

Brief Facts

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are set out hereinafter:-

(i) The parties got married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 13th December, 1998 and have a son, from the wedlock, namely Aniket@ Dhruv, later changed to Dhairya (‘Son’), born on 28th May, 2001.

(ii) The parties started living separately since January, 2004. From the date of separation, the Son has been residing with the Wife.

(iii) On 11th May, 2004, the Husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court, seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

(iv) During the pendency of the divorce petition, on 27th May, 2004, the Wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking pendente lite maintenance. This application was disposed of by the Family Court vide order dated 20th September, 2004 directing the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.18,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- to the Wife and Rs. 3000/- to the Son).

(v) Both the parties preferred an appeal against this order before this Court. In the appeal, this sum was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- to the Wife and Rs. 5000/- to the Son) by this Court vide order dated 21st November, 2005.

(vi) On 28th February, 2009, the Wife filed the aforementioned application under Sections 24 and Section 26 of the Act for enhancement of the interim maintenance, which came to be decided by the impugned judgment. In the said application, she claimed an enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 1,45,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.

(vii) On 14th July, 2016, the Husband withdrew his divorce petition.

5. Claiming that there have been substantial changes in circumstances, the Wife filed the application for enhancement of interim maintenance before the Family Court. In the said application, the Wife submitted that the Husband’s salary, perks, allowances, bonuses etc were more than Rs. 4,00,000/- per month. She further submitted that the requirements of the Wife and the Son have increased manifold since the previous application under Section 24 of the HMA was decided.

6. During the pendency of the said application, on 17th July, 2015, the Husband made a statement before the Family Court that he had, keeping in mind the requirements of his growing Son, decided to voluntarily increase the interim maintenance to Rs.65,000/- per month (Rs. 50,000 to the Wife from the date of filing of enhancement application i.e. 28th February, 2009 and Rs 15,000 to the Son from July, 2015). He further submitted that after the main divorce petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th July, 2016, the Family Court became functus officio and therefore, no relief under Sectio