JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Chandra Kanta @ Kanta against the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Family Court, Kota by which it was held that the appellant would not be entitled to receive any further maintenance after receipt of sum of Rs. 50,000 pursuant to the order of Supreme Court dated 26.7.1999. 2. Facts of the case as mentioned in the appeal are that marriage of the appellant was solemnised with the respondent no.2 as per the rites and rituals on 16.11.1972. The relationship between the husband and wife became strained. The appellant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 7.12.1984 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota which entered into a compromise and a sum of Rs. 8,000 was deposited in fixed deposit in three years in the name of appellant. A daughter was also born from the wedlock of the marriage. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Ex-parte decree was passed by the Family Court on 1.6.1989. The appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce on 31.7.1989, which was dismissed in default. Even when application for restoration was pending. In the meantime, the respondent-husband contacted another marriage with one Prem Bai on 21.1.1991 in Arya Samaj. A certificate of marriage was issued by the Arya Samaj, Rampura, Kota. When the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was allowed and the case of the appellant was restored in the year 1993, reply was submitted by the appellant stating therein that no desertion was committed by the appellant, however, she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and thrown out from the marital house. The appellant was still willing to reside with him. The learned Family Court framed four issues in the matter. The Family Court by order dated 6.1.1996 dismissed the application of the respondent-husband for divorce holding that he had failed to establish any cruelty on the part of appellant-wife. The respondent filed D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.602/1986 against the aforesaid judgement, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 15.1.1998. The respondent thereupon filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10378/1998 before the Supreme Court wherein following order was passed on 26.7.1999: "The parties have come to some terms. The respondent filed D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.602/1986 against the aforesaid judgement, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 15.1.1998. The respondent thereupon filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10378/1998 before the Supreme Court wherein following order was passed on 26.7.1999: "The parties have come to some terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an offer has been made by the petitioner for paying Rs. 50,000 in a lump to the first respondent and in addition hereto a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 would be paid to her as ordered by the trial court. We are not mentioning anything regarding the right of the daughter of the respondent as she is not a party hereto. It is for the daughter to apply for such amount of monthly allowance as law permits. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 50,000 agreed to be paid in a lump can be paid by 31st October, 1999. List on 1.11.1999." Subsequently, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 1.11.1999: "Leave granted. It is represented on behalf of the respondent-wife that the amount of Rs. 50,000 has been paid by way of draft. This is recorded. In view of the said development nothing further need to be done beyond what we have ordered on 26.7.1999 (regarding the further liability of paying monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent). The question of payment of maintenance allowance to the daughter is left open. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms." Though the respondent paid to the appellant-wife a sum of Rs. 50,000 by a draft but nothing further was paid by him even though as per the order of the Supreme Court, he was required to pay Rs. 1,000 per month as maintenance. She thereupon filed an execution application before the Family Court on 28.11.2005 praying for payment of arrears of maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month from 23.6.2004 till date of filing the application. Thereafter, the Family Court by impugned order dated 14.7.2006 dismissed the application holding that the order of Supreme Court was misread by the appellant and that the respondent-husband was not required to pay anything if has already paid Rs. 50,000 and he was not under obligation to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month. 3. Thereafter, the Family Court by impugned order dated 14.7.2006 dismissed the application holding that the order of Supreme Court was misread by the appellant and that the respondent-husband was not required to pay anything if has already paid Rs. 50,000 and he was not under obligation to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant against the impugned judgement and learned counsel for the respondent in support of it. As would be evident from the first extracted above offer made by order of Supreme Court dated 26.7.1999 the respondent-husband for paying a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 was taken note of and it was observed that and in addition thereto a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month would be paid to her as ordered by the trial court. The Supreme Court did not mention anything regarding right of the daughter to receive maintenance as she was not party to the proceedings. The husband was however required to pay the lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 by 31.10.1999 and the matter was listed on 1.11.1999. On that date, it was represented on behalf of the appellant-wife that the amount of Rs. 50,000 has been paid by way of draft, which fact was taken on record. The Supreme Court taking note of that fact further observed that "in view of the said development nothing further need to be done beyond what we have ordered on 26.7.1999 (regarding the further liability of paying monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 to the respondent). The question of payment of maintenance allowance to the daughter is left open." 4. Though the Family Court has attributed misinterpretation of the order to the appellant-wife whereas, in fact, it is the Family Court itself which has misconstrued, misread and misapplied the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. The two orders have to be read in continuation with each other. In the first order it was agreed by the respondent that he would pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 in lump sum, but Supreme Court directed that in addition thereto, a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 as ordered by the trial court be paid. When the matter next came up before the Supreme Court on 1.11.1999, it was informed that amount of Rs. 50,000 has been paid by draft to the appellant-wife. 50,000 in lump sum, but Supreme Court directed that in addition thereto, a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 as ordered by the trial court be paid. When the matter next came up before the Supreme Court on 1.11.1999, it was informed that amount of Rs. 50,000 has been paid by draft to the appellant-wife. The Supreme Court in that context observed that nothing further need to be done beyond what we have ordered on 26.7.1999 and what was ordered on 26.7.1999 was specifically indicated (that was regarding further liability or of paying monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 to the respondent). The direction of Rs. 1,000 being paid as monthly allowance by the trial court was thus kept intact in both the orders of the Supreme Court. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court dated 14.7.2006 therefore deserves to be set aside. 5. This Court by taking note of the fact that the respondent has not been making payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000 despite the Supreme Court upholding the order of trial court, directed the State Counsel on 26.2.2013 to seek information from the office of Chief Engineer, (H.Q.), PHED regarding posting of respondent-Ram Kumar Arya and furnish the details including his last pay certificate. A copy of that order was sent to the Chief Engineer, (H.Q.), PHED for necessary action. As per the information sent by the Superintending Engineer cum Technical Assistant to Chief Engineer (H.Q.), PHED, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the learned Advocate General vide letter dated 6.3.2013, which is placed on record, Basic Pay of respondent is Rs. 32,000 per month and he was on that pay receiving 72% dearness allowance and 20% house rent allowance. Thus the total emoluments that the respondent was received as on 6.3.2012 was Rs. 61,440. Action of the respondent in not making payment to the helpless appellant cannot be appreciated, much less when he is a Government servant and has contacted second marriage even in the face of pending proceedings. 6. We therefore while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Family Court dated 14.7.2006 direct that the respondent shall pay arrears to the appellant @ Rs. 1,000 per month, which shall be computed by the learned Family Court and conveyed to the Chief Engineer (H.Q.), PHED with reference to their letter no.H.G.II( )/2012-13/35280 dated 6.3.2013. 6. We therefore while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Family Court dated 14.7.2006 direct that the respondent shall pay arrears to the appellant @ Rs. 1,000 per month, which shall be computed by the learned Family Court and conveyed to the Chief Engineer (H.Q.), PHED with reference to their letter no.H.G.II( )/2012-13/35280 dated 6.3.2013. The Chief Engineer aforesaid shall ensure deduction of Rs. 1,000 for the future monthly allowance and Rs. 2,500 for the arrears. The amount of Rs. 3,500 so deducted shall be directly deposited into the account of the appellant-wife which shall be conveyed by the Family Court to the Chief Engineer. The appellant shall furnish her bank account number to the learned Family Court and the complete statement of arrears. 7. We also observe that the appellant shall be entitled to make an application before the Family Court for upward revision of maintenance by making it clear that the order of the Supreme Court only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 was agreed order and the subsequent order of making payment of Rs. 1,000 per month was in addition thereto as observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court passed while upholding the order of trial court. That order was passed long ago in the year 1999 and the value of Rs. 1,000 has been diminished to a great extent. The appellant would therefore be entitled to make application for enhancement in the amount of compensation before the Family Court separately which shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.With that direction, the appeal is allowed.Petition Allowed. *******