The jurisdiction under S.25(2) can be exercised to enhance maintenance despite initial settlement agreements when circumstances change.

1. This is an appeal from the order dated 20.03.2015 delivered in Case No. Misc. 72 of 2012 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura under S.25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act .

2. By the said order dated 20.03.2015, the maintenance allowance from Rs.4000/-per month as determined on mutual consent by the appellant and the respondent by way of settlement, which has been recorded in the joint compromise petition (solenama) filed in Title Suit (Divorce)183 of 2010, has been enhanced to Rs. 6000/- per month in favour of the respondent.

3. The facts are mostly admitted. The respondent wife filed a petition under S.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 being Title Suit (Divorce) 183 of 2010. In the pendency, both the appellant and the respondent struck a settlement towards the divorce on the terms and conditions, inter alia, that the appellant shall pay the fixed maintenance at Rs. 4000/-per month to the respondent and her minor daughter namely Ms. Anamika Sarkar and as such the amount of maintenance shall be treated as fixed and final.

4. It was further settled that till the minor daughter's marriage or till she earned her livelihood, the appellant shall continue to pay the maintenance at the said rate but in the event of marriage of their daughter or she started earning of her livelihood, the maintenance shall come down to 50% meaning restricting to the share of the respondent herein. The respondent however would get maintenance till her death. However, in case of the remarriage, the respondent shall not get any maintenance. The respondent by filing an application under S.25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act claimed that the circumstances has changed and in the changed circumstances the rate of maintenance shall be increased for defraying the expenses of a modest livelihood.

5. The appellant herein raised serious objection contending that the basis of the compromise for purpose of passing the compromise decree of divorce was fixed maintenance and as such the court should not have exercised its jurisdiction under S.25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955. According to the appellant, unless the terms of the compromise are challenged and interfered, the respondent is not entitled to the higher rate of maintenance. On discarding such objections by the impugned order dated 20.03.2015, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.4000/- to Rs.6000/- per month with effect from 01.03.2015. The said maintenance is for the respondent and her minor daughter, to be paid in the same mode as provided by the judgment and order dated 14.09.2010 delivered in Title Suit (Divorce) 183 of 2010. In the impugned order the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura has observed that :
'I find that the suit was disposed of on compromise for payment of maintenance allowance for the petitioner and her minor daughter @ Rs. 4000/- per month. There is also no such terms in the judgment to the effect that there would be no enhancement of such maintenance allowance in future. Now S.25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 empowers the court to modify any such order of maintenance in any changed circumstances.'

6. The appellant has raised two pronged objections to question the legality of the order dated 20.03.2015. The objections are :
i) The Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura misread the terms of the settlement in respect of maintenance, based on which the judgment dated 14.09.2010 had been passed in Title Suit (Divorce) 183 of 2010. According to the appellant in terms of the settlement it has been clearly stated that the main