IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. 91 of 2009 ------- Smt. Sita Devi wife of Rabindra Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Dhira par, P.S. Chowk, District- Patna..................................................... Appellant Versus Sri Rabindra Prasad., son of late Basudeo Prasad , resident of Mohalla- Sultanganj, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Patna..................... Respondent ---------- 13 17-10-2011 Heard the parties. The appellant as wife obtained a decree for maintenance under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act at the rate of Rs.500/- per mouth. The amount of maintenance was fixed long back on 26-11-1990. The respondent husband challenged the judgment and decree awarding maintenance by preferring First Appeal No. 99 of 1991 before this Court. On account of pendency of the first appeal, the appellant who wanted revision of the maintenance allowance on the basis of enhanced salary income of the husband, filed I.A. No. 405 of 2002 in the first appeal. The Court directed for early hearing of the appeal itself and held that I.A. application shall be disposed of at the stage of hearing. The appeal, though expedited, could not be heard and was dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 19th February, 2004. After dismissal of the first appeal for default, the appellant preferred the instant proceeding bearing no. 91(M) of 2005 for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The husband appeared and thereafter he took steps for restoration of the first appeal which was ultimately restored on 21-4-2006. The appellant, in order to meet the objection raised before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court that her I.A. No. 405 of 2002was still pending filed I.A. No. 5844 of 2006 in the pending first appeal praying for withdrawal of the said I.A. so that she may file a fresh application for enhancement of quantum of maintenance in the court below itself. This Court allowed the prayer and permitted the appellant to withdraw the pending I.A. on 13th February, 2007. It is surprising that in spite of such order of this Court passed on 13-2-2007 the learned court below has, by the order under appeal dated 2nd December, 2008 held that it cannot pass any order in the case pending before it on account of matter being sub - judice before this Court in First Appeal No. 99 of 1991. In our considered view the learned court below has erred in law in not appreciating the legal position. While allowing the appellant to withdraw her interlocutory application for enhancement of maintenance amount, this Court noticed the reason for such prayer and then permitted the prayer for withdrawal. In view of such order of this Court, the learned court below was required to consider petitioner’s application for enhancement of maintenance allowance on merits after considering all the relevant facts. We have no hesitation in observing that the amount of Rs.500/- allowed in favour of the appellant in the year 1990 is no longer a just amount when the present salary of the appellant is said to be around Rs.40,000/- per month. The court below will consider the defence of the respondent in accordance with law but we must express our view without prejudice to the case of either parties that the first appeal has lost its meaning and has practically become infructuous in view of declined value of Rs.500/- after 21 years. That appeal cannot be of any value to the husband -respondent and even if he chooses to pursue the appeal, that shall not stand in the way of the Family Court to consider the claim for enhancement of maintenance on its own merits. Only for clarification, it is observed that under the Family Courts’s Act the Family Courts have to do justice without being hampered by technicalities of procedure. The procedure for such Courts is a summary one and technicalities of Evidence Act do not stand in its way. The court below shall keep this observation in mind and shall dispose of the claim of the appellant for enhancement of maintenance amount in accordance with law at the earliest and in any case within four months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. In case the husband does not co-operate in the matter then the Family Court shall proceed and decide the claim of the appellant ex-parte. The order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)