JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by Additions District Judge, Sojat, District Pali, whereby application under Section 25(2) of the Act filed by the respondent has been allowed and amount if permanent alimony has been enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the parties entered into a wedlock on 1.3.1979 and by way of a compromise decree, their marriage was dissolved under Section 13 of the Act on 15.5.2006. As a part of compromise it was agreed between the parties as under: 3. The other terms and conditions of the compromise included payment pa sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards the silver and gold jewelery and dowry articles, which was also paid by the appellant to the respondent. 4. On 31.3.2010, an application was filed by the respondent under Section 25(2) of the Act inter-alia seeking modification of the amount of permanent alimony. The relevant part of the application reads as under:- " 3- ;g ds blds ckn csrgkl eagxkbZ c<+ xbZ gS] izkfFkZ;k dk xqtkjk :i;s 2]500@& ( nks gtkj ikap lkS :i;s ) esa gksrk ugha gSA vizkFkhZ guqekuflag MkDVj ltZu gS vHkh jktdh; lsok esa jktdh; vLirky nslwjh esa yxs gq, gSaA vkilh jkthukek ds fu.kZ; ds i'pkr~ jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa ds osru esa eagxkbZ dks ns[krs gq, cgqr c<+ksrjh gqbZ gSA jkthukek ls QSlyk gksus ds le; vizkFkhZ dk osru yxHkx djhc 18]000@& v{kjs vBkjg gtkj :i;s ekgokj Fkk vc lHkh osru HkRrs feykdj vizkFkhZ dks :i;s 50]000@& ipkl gtkj ds djhc izkIr gks jgs gSaA vkt ds vukt] rsy] ?kh] 'kDdj] nkysa] lfCt;ka] xqM+] diM+s ds Hkkoksa dks ns[krs gq, izkfFkZ;k dk fuosnu gS fd mldh ekgokjh xqtkjk HkRrk dh jkf'k c<+kdj de ls de 8]000@& v{kjs vkB gtkj ekgokj dh tkos rkfd izkfFkZ;k dk xqtj clj gks ldsA " 5. The application was resisted by the appellant and it was inter-alia submitted that the amount paid as permanent alimony is sufficient and besides his parents, his two sons are undertaking higher education and therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was agreed for the life time of the applicant. The application was resisted by the appellant and it was inter-alia submitted that the amount paid as permanent alimony is sufficient and besides his parents, his two sons are undertaking higher education and therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was agreed for the life time of the applicant. Besides the above, certain objections were also raised to the effect that the applicant was working with Pali Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh as semi-skilled labourer and was earning Rs. 125/- per day, which is sufficient. Besides the above, she was earning interest on the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- paid by him and the applicant was bound by the terms of the compromise and besides the above sums, she was earning from several other sources as well. 6. The evidence was led by the parties, wherein both the applicant and respondent were examined. Father of the applicant was also examined. 7. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the salary of the appellant post implementation of 6th pay commission recommendations has increased multi-fold, which was about Rs. 20,000/- at the time of passing of the order, is now more than Rs. 58,000/-and even if he was to retire on 30.11.2011, besides the amount of pension, he is likely to receive a one time payment of Rs. 20 lacs. Besides the above, the trial court came to the conclusion that in any case after the 6th pay commission recommendations, the cost of living has increased multi-fold and inflation has gone up and the applicant belonging to Rajput community and aged about 45 years and wife of a doctor is not expected to work at NAREGA for her maintenance and consequently, enhanced the sum to Rs. 5,000/- per month as permanent alimony. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was the basis for award of permanent alimony, which clearly indicated that the respondent would be paid Rs. 5,000/- per month as permanent alimony. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was the basis for award of permanent alimony, which clearly indicated that the respondent would be paid Rs. 2,500/- per month during his life time, the said amount was not open to any modification, variation or revision and therefore, the trial court fell in error in enhancing the said amount; the order passed on compromise cannot be termed as an order passed under Section 25(1) of the Act so as to attract the provision of Section 25(2) of the Act and therefore, the application was not maintainable; and even if provision of Section 25(2) of the Act were attracted the change in circumstance have not been enumerated by the trial court and therefore, in absence of the fulfillment of conditions under Section 25(2) of the Act, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 9. Further submissions were made regarding the status of the respondent and her income qua the appellant to submit that there was no justification for passing the order impugned. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that application under Section 25(2) of the Act was very much maintainable as the order on compromise is an order under Section 25(1) of the Act; the conditions prevailing regarding the increase in the prices of all the goods over a period of time has been clearly indicated by the applicant in her statement and therefore, the trial court was justified in enhancing the amount of permanent alimony. 11. It was submitted that the allegation about the applicant working with the dairy was factually incorrect, which fact was stated by her in her statement and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was possessed of sufficient means and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 12. I have considered the rival submissions.It is an admitted fact between the parties that they entered into a compromise dated 15.5.2006, which inter-alia provided for permanent alimony to the applicant for life at Rs. 2,500/- per month from May, 2006. 12. I have considered the rival submissions.It is an admitted fact between the parties that they entered into a compromise dated 15.5.2006, which inter-alia provided for permanent alimony to the applicant for life at Rs. 2,500/- per month from May, 2006. The said compromise dated 15.5.2006 was verified by the learned District Judge and the same resulted in passing of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act with the riders as indicated in the compromise dated 15.5.2006 including the provision for permanent alimony. The award of permanent alimony by way of decree dated 15.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat even by way of compromise would clearly fall within the power exercised by the said Court under Section 25(1) of the Act. The exercise of power by the Court under a statute whether on contest or on compromise between the parties, the source of such power has to be traced to a specific provision of the Act, which in the present case is Section 25(1) and once a power is held to have been exercised under the said provision, the other attending consequences would follow and therefore, in the present case the application under Section 25(2) of the Act was maintainable. In view of thereof, the objection about the jurisdiction of the District Judge raised by learned counsel for the appellant has no substance. 13. A look at the term relating to grant of permanent alimony in the compromise quoted herein-before would indicate that the said term did not provide that irrespective of any change in circumstance, the amount of permanent alimony shall not be varied and modified and/or same would not be open to revision. Besides the above factual position, there that cannot be any estoppel against the statute and the agreement dated 15.5.2006 by itself cannot overright the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act. 14. The applicant had clearly indicated in her application that prices of essential commodities have sky-rocketed and she cannot maintain herself with Rs. 2,500/- per month and thereafter, indicated that at the time of compromise, the salary of the husband was Rs. 18,000/-, which was about Rs. 50,000/- at the time of making of the application. It was indicated that looking to the prices of essential commodities like grain, oil, sugar, pulses vegetables, clothes etc., the amount of permanent alimony be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/-. 18,000/-, which was about Rs. 50,000/- at the time of making of the application. It was indicated that looking to the prices of essential commodities like grain, oil, sugar, pulses vegetables, clothes etc., the amount of permanent alimony be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/-. The applicant entered in the witness-box and was thoroughly cross-examined wherein she gave out the comparative prices of various edible items as they existed in 2006 and on the date of her statement, which indicates a multi-fold increase. The applicant also denied that she was working with Dugdh Utpadak Sangh. The father, who appeared as AW-2 was also thoroughly cross-examined. When the appellant entered the witness-box, he though admitted that the inflation has gone up but expressed ignorance about how much and stated that even in Rs. 500/- per month a person can maintain himself. The appellant also indicated that his two children were studying at Delhi and Udaipur and the same involved huge expenditure. 15. Besides the oral evidence, the documentary evidence included the salary certificate of the appellant indicating a salary of Rs. 58,714/- per month, deductions of Rs. 10,547/-, net payable salary of Rs. 48,166/-; document showing that appellant was to retire on 30.11.2011; the statement of account of the applicant for the period February, 2007 to March, 2011 indicating deposits and withdrawals during the said period of about four years. 16. There is no dispute on the fact that the inflation as it existed in the year 2006, has increased at a very rapid pace and a judicial notice of about aspect irrespective of the statements of the parties, which though indicate the same, can be taken. 17. From the evidence available on record, the applicant has clearly made out a case of her requirements and the change in circumstance of both the parties i.e. while the appellant started receiving three times the amount of salary which he was getting at the time when the compromise decree was passed and that the inflation had gone up as far as the respondent was concerned. Even if the fact of the appellant's impeding retirement is taken into consideration still the amount of post retirement income from the lump-sum payable to him alongwith pension is likely to be much more than what was his income at the time when the compromise was entered into between the parties. 18. Even if the fact of the appellant's impeding retirement is taken into consideration still the amount of post retirement income from the lump-sum payable to him alongwith pension is likely to be much more than what was his income at the time when the compromise was entered into between the parties. 18. It is no doubt correct that the learned trial court has given a cursory finding as to the change in circumstance qua the applicant, however, in view of the above consideration by this Court, this Court is satisfied about the change in circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference. 19. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******