Court No. - 16 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 396 of 2001 Appellant :- Brajesh Kumar Respondent :- Smt.Anjali Counsel for Appellant :- M.K.Gupta,Ashok Bhatnagar,Krishna Agrawal,Shashi Kant Counsel for Respondent :- Ramanand Gupta Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No. Nil of 2017 (filed on 8.4.2017) This Court while dismissing challenge laid to the judgment and decree of the trial court refusing divorce to the husband had fixed monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- for the wife and daughter. The judgment of this Court refusing divorce to the husband has attained finality with dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court. An application No.378399 of 2013 was thereafter filed by the wife and daughter seeking enhancement of maintenance for the reasons disclosed therein and this Court proceeded to pass following order on 23.5.2016:- "Heard Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant on Civil Misc. Application No.378399 of 2013. A supplementary affidavit alongwith an application No.156465 of 2016 has been filed on 11.5.2016 annexing therewith a copy of the acknowledgement of Income Tax return of the appellant for the A.Y. 2015-16 which discloses total income of the appellant to be Rs.91,28,010/-. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent is that the maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month was fixed by this court by judgment dated 21.10.2008 while deciding the appeal on consideration of the facts of the pay- scale of Rs.37,400-67,000 of the appellant. However, subsequently the appellant started getting yearly salary of about Rs.92,00,000/- after taking voluntary retirement from the Railways. He submits that the applicant being daughter of the appellant and incurring tuition fees of approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum for coaching for preparation of Civil Services Examination- 2017, some more amount is required to be paid by the applicant towards maintenance which the applicant may easily pay from the huge resources available to him. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant raises question as to the maintainability of the application. He also prays for a month's time to file reply to both the above noted applications. On 12.8.2014, this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent states that he had filed Application No. 319878 of 2012 for enhancement of maintenance but since it was moved in the year 2012, he has moved a fresh Application No. 378399 of 2013 dated 20.12.2013, so he does not want to press the earlier application. Accordingly, the earlier Application No. 319878 of 2012 is dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant stated that he has not received the copy of Application No. 378399 of 2013, so today the copy has been served before the Court. Let the objection, if any, on this application may be filed within three weeks. List after one month." On 12.9.2014, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant sought further time to file objection. On 16.10.2015 again the plaintiff appellant sought time and was granted three weeks and no more time to file reply to the Modification Application. Matter was directed to be listed on 17.11.2015. On 13.4.2016, the aforesaid application was directed to be listed peremptorily on 27.4.2016 due to absence of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. Again on 27.4.2016, the case was passed over on the illness of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. On 4.5.2016 the applicant-respondent was directed to file supplementary affidavit which has been filed today. However, the plaintiff-appellant has filed an affidavit on 18.11.2015 along with a Misc. Application No.390570 of 2015 raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application and praying for permission to file a detailed reply to the contents of the affidavit of the application filed by the applicant. Thus, it is clear that despite stop order the plaintiff-appellant has not filed reply to the contents of the application No.378399 of 2013. The supplementary affidavit dated 10.5.2016 filed on 11.5.2016 prima facie discloses total income of the plaintiff-appellant for the A.Y. 2015-16 to be Rs.91,28,010/- which comes to about Rs.7,50,000/- per month. Today, again a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant to grant of further time to file reply to the contents of application No.378399 of 2013 as well as time to file reply to the supplementary affidavit and application No.156465 of 2016 filed by the applicant. Considering the circumstances as aforementioned as well as the conduct of the plaintiff-appellant in avoiding to submit reply to the contents of the application despite stop order as well as the prima facie material brought on record by the applicant with regard to the income of the plaintiff-appellant and her need for continuation of her studies, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to require the plaintiff-appellant to pay an additional amount of Rs.18,000/- per month to the applicant as an arrangement from May 2016 till the disposal of the aforesaid two applications. Apart from above, the plaintiff-appellant shall pay within two weeks from today a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- to the applicant towards travelling and cost of litigation incurred in pursuing these two applications till date. As prayed, list in the 3rd week of July 2016 by which time the plaintiff-appellant shall file reply to the aforesaid two applications. " Subsequent affidavits have been filed by the parties in support of their respective submissions. It is otherwise not disputed that the daughter whose need has also been taken note of by this Court for the purposes of passing the order dated 23.5.2016 has got married. Need of the wife and daughter as well as financial capacity of husband are the aspects that have been highlighted by the parties and an objection is raised to the maintainability of application by Sri Krishna Agarwal, on the ground that once the proceedings have been concluded, an application under section 24 would not be maintainable. Application is also contested on other counts. This plea is countered by Sri Bhatnagar contending that the mentioning of section 24 was an inadvertent omission and that such an application would be referable to section 25 of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the materials brought on record. Eversince filing of this application in the year 2013 there have been subsequent developments including the marriage of the daughter. Questions of fact arise for consideration of the respective plea. It would, therefore, be appropriate to permit the applicant i.e. wife to move a fresh application before the trial court seeking enhancement of maintenance under section 25 of the Act. Such an application would be dealt with after affording an opportunity of hearing to the husband, on its own merit, and in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to provide that the enhancement of maintenance awarded under the order of this Court dated 23.5.2016 would continue to be available to the wife subject to ultimate determination made in proceedings under section 25 by the trial court. The court of first instance, however, shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order of this Court dated 23.5.2016 as well as the order passed today. All endeavours shall be made to conclude the proceedings at the earliest possible. This application is disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed today, all the other applications pending for similar purposes in this appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.1.2018 Ashok Kr.