JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the District Judge, Alwar rejecting the application of the petitioner for enhancement of the amount of the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner/wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the respondent No.2/husband filed a petition for divorce in the trial Court. Both the cases were consolidated, and, during the pendency of those cases, the wife/petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was earlier allowed and a sum of Rs.2500/- was fixed, as monthly maintenance. Being aggrieved with the same, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner before this Court and an amount of Rs.2500/- was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 20.07.2005. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved another application in the trial Court for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance on the ground that earlier total emoluments of the respondent was Rs.22,028/-, and Rs.5,000/-, was awarded, as interim maintenance, now the respondent has been promoted and he is getting total emoluments of Rs.32,370/-, therefore, the amount for interim maintenance may be enhanced reasonably. The trial Court rejected the said application, which is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court committed an illegality in not taking into consideration the fact that earlier the salary of the respondent was Rs.22,028/-, whereas after his promotion the same has been enhanced to Rs.32,370/-, but still the amount of interim maintenance has not been enhanced, therefore, the order of the trial Court be set aside and, a reasonable amount of maintenance be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that initially the application of the petitioner for interim maintenance was only for Rs.5,000/- per month, which was allowed by this Court and, in these circumstances the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the present application of the petitioner for enhancing of the amount of interim maintenance. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent no.2/husband entered his appearance before this Court through his Advocate on 17.02.2007 and since then no reply to the writ petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent no.2/husband entered his appearance before this Court through his Advocate on 17.02.2007 and since then no reply to the writ petition has been filed. So far as the increase of salary from Rs.22,028/- to Rs.32,370/- is concerned, the same has not been disputed, and even otherwise the same is proved from Salary Certificate of the respondent, placed on record by the petitioner. The prices and the cost of living have been increased tremendously. Under the changed circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an illegality in not enhancing the amount of maintenance, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the amount of salary of the respondent no.2, which has now been enhanced from Rs.22,028/- to Rs.32,370/-, I think it fit and proper that the ends of justice will meet in case the amount of interim maintenance is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court dated 09.11.2006 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance is allowed and the same is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month with effect from 1st May, 2008. The cost is made easy. Writ Petition Allowed. *******