JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
1. This revision by the petitioner-wife is directed against an order dated 1-12-88 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by which he increased the maintenance amount payable to the wife and her child from Rs. 1300/ to Rs. 1600/- per month.
2. The brief grounds on which this revision is filed are that the learned trial court having found that the respondent-husband had suppressed his income, should have permitted the wife to lead evidence to show the correct income of the husband for fixing the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife had summoned official of the income tax department as also some employee from the office of the employer of the husband to show the correct income of the husband. But the Court did not permit the evidence to be recorded. It is then alleged that the pendente lite maintenance should have been fixed at Rs. 1500/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1000/- for the child.
3. Notice to show cause was issued against the respondent. Reply has been filed. It is alleged that soon after filing of the petition before the trial court, wife also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The husband before the learned MM agreed to pay and the wife agreed to accept Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance for herself and Rs. 200/- for the child. She had further stated that she will not make any further claim of maintenance in the matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, the husband started paying Rs. 700/- per month to the wife with effect from 1-4-87. Inspite of the above statement made by the wife before the Learned MM she persisted for more amount of maintenance before the learned ADJ under Section 24 of the Act. Then also the parties by agreement settled that the husband shall pay Rs. 1300/-per month as maintenance pendente lite for both the wife and child. Therefore the order for maintenance having been passed on the basis of a compromise could not be assailed by the wife.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order of the learned ADJ indicates that Rs. 1300/- per month as maintenance pendente lite as also litigation expenses of Rs. 2200/- was fixed by consent of both the parties. The wife then brought certain more facts to the notice of the learned ADJ like that he was actually drawing salary of Rs. 4300/- per month and was also getting bonus of Rs. 14000/- to Rs. 15000/- per year. In addition the husband was alleged to be recovering Rs. 1500/- per month as rent. The learned ADJ carefully considered these circumstances some of which were also admitted in the reply filed by the husband. He came to the conclusion that husband was actually receiving Rs. 14000/- to Rs. 15000/- approximately per annum as bonus. Thus adding this income he came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the husband was round about Rs. 5000/- per month and, therefore, increased the maintenance allowance from Rs. 1300/- to Rs. 1600/- per month.
5. I am of the view that there seems to be no jurisdictional error in the conclusion arrived at by learned ADJ. It is not to be forgotten that the earlier order for maintenance pendente lite was passed by the trial court by consent of both the parties and when the husband was shown to have additional income of about Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1200/- per month in the shape of bonus, the trial court rightly exercised its discretion by increasing the maintenance amount by Rs. 100/- per month. It was not a case where the petitioner should have been allowed to lead more evidence. This revision, therefore, has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
