ORDER Pushpav. Ganediwala, J. - This is an application by the appellant/wife seeking modification of the order dated 07/07/2015 passed in Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014.Before adverting to decide this application, the brief facts with regard to various orders for maintenance in various proceedings passed by the Courts need to be noted. 2. The marriage of the appellant/wife with the respondent/husband was solemnized on 17/05/1997, and out of the said wedlock, they have a son, viz., Kartik, born on 11/07/1999. Since November - 1998, the couple is residing separately. The custody of the child (now major) is with the appellant/wife. 3. At the time of marriage, the respondent/husband was serving as a Research Assistant in Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies, Parel, Mumbai. Feeling aggrieved with the act of desertion by the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife filed a petition bearing No. A-69/2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter "Act of 1955", for short) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, and the same was decided in favour of the appellant/wife vide judgment dated 29/04/2008 directing the respondent/husband to resume cohabitation and to pay her the permanent alimony of Rs.3,500/- (rupees three thousand five hundred) per month and Rs.1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred) to the child, total Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month from the date of judgment and decree. 4. Instead of complying with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent/husband, he filed a petition bearing No. A-487/2009 for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Act of 1955, which came to be dismissed on merits. During the pendency of this petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 filed by the appellant/wife came to be rejected on the ground that she is already getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month for herself and her minor son Kartik in Petition No. A-69/2003. In the said order, the Family Court directed that the payment of permanent alimony in Petition No. A-69/2003 shall be deemed to have been the payment made pursuant to the interim maintenance as well. 5. Thereafter, on 18/10/2013, the appellant/wife filed an application below Exh. 62 in divorce Petition No. A-487/2009 for enhancement of interim maintenance. This application came to be rejected by the Family Court, Nagpur vide order dated 26/05/2014. In Writ Petition No. 5895/2014 against the order below Exh. 5. Thereafter, on 18/10/2013, the appellant/wife filed an application below Exh. 62 in divorce Petition No. A-487/2009 for enhancement of interim maintenance. This application came to be rejected by the Family Court, Nagpur vide order dated 26/05/2014. In Writ Petition No. 5895/2014 against the order below Exh. 62, this Court vide order dated 10/08/2015 remanded the matter for afresh consideration directing the Family Court to decide Exh. 62 in the light of the documents filed by the appellant/wife and also the order dated 07/07/2015 passed by this Court in the Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014. It was also observed by this Court that the claim of the appellant/wife for the period till 30/06/2015 is required to be considered. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/wife challenged the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and permanent alimony before this Court to the extent of grant of permanent alimony in Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014 (Old First Appeal No. 708/2008). In this appeal, the parties entered into the terms of settlement and requested the Court to pass the decree in terms of settlement. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 07/07/2015 disposed of Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014 in terms of settlement. It was settled between the parties that the respondent/husband will pay Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month towards permanent alimony for both mother and son from 01/07/2015 and also to bear the educational expenses of the child. 7. As per directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5895/2014, the Family Court, Nagpur reconsidered the application below Exh. 62 and rejected the same vide order dated 12/01/2016 specifically observing that as the parties have settled the terms for grant of permanent alimony @ Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month, the appellant/wife is not entitled for enhancement. 8. This order of rejection below Exh. 62 was challenged by the appellant/wife before the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5467/2016. The learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 07/06/2019 disposed of the petition observing that since the petitioner/wife was seeking enhancement in the amount of maintenance and in the light of the fact that the proceedings for divorce were not pending, the petitioner/wife is at liberty to make an application for modifying the terms of settlement in the Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014. 9. This is how the appellant/wife filed the present application. 9. This is how the appellant/wife filed the present application. It is pertinent to note here that in the meantime, on 26/05/2014, the appellant/wife has also filed an application before the Family Court, Nagpur under Order 21 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter "C.P.C.", for short) seeking directions for periodical payment @ Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) per month from 01/05/2008 till compliance of the decree as the respondent/husband has failed to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights against him. 10. Now, the question before us is whether the appellant/wife is entitled for modification in the order dated07/07/2015 passed by this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014 as per the terms of settlement between the parties ? 11. We have heard Shri Hedaoo, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Khobragade, learned counsel for the respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/wife submitted that at the time of settlement between the parties on 07/07/2015, the amount was fixed as per the salary of the respondent/husband at the relevant time. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent/husband, being in government service, his salary got enhanced as per seventh pay commission and therefore, there is a need to enhance the amount of maintenance which was fixed between the parties in the year 2015. 13. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposed the application by placing on record his reply and submitted that the respondent/husband is already paying Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) per month since the period 2014-15 and therefore, the learned counsel urged to reject the application. 14. We have considered the submissions on behalf of both the parties and also perused the record. 15. At the outset, the change in circumstances is a valid ground to modify the decree of maintenance/alimony. In the instant case, the petition for divorce filed by the respondent/husband came to be dismissed and the finding recorded in the judgment has reached its finality. If this be so, as the petitioner/husband was not granted any relief under the provisions of the Act of 1955, as per Section 25 of the said Act, he is not liable to pay alimony to the respondent/wife and therefore, whatever alimony is being paid by the respondent/husband herein to the appellant/wife is in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 16. 16. In the appeal before this Court, i.e., Family Court Appeal No. 88/2014, in which the present application came to be filed, the appellant/wife had challenged the amount of alimony, i.e., Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) granted by the trial Court in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights for herself and her minor son. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties entered into the terms of settlement and the amount of alimony was fixed at Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month from 01/07/2015 and accordingly, the appeal came to be disposed of. 17. Undisputedly, in addition to Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), the appellant/wife is also getting Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand) per month since 26/05/2014 in her separate proceedings filed under Order 21 Rule 33 of the C.P.C. seeking periodical payment for want of compliance of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, as per judgment dated 10/02/2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1630/2019. 18. Without going into the question of entitlement of the appellant/wife for permanent alimony under Section 25 in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and at the same time, by virtue of the periodical payment as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 33 of the C.P.C., in our considered view, the appellant/wife is getting enhanced amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) per month. 19. It is pertinent to note here that the present application came to be filed in August-2019 and thereafter, the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1630/2019 decided on 10/02/2020 while allowing the Writ Petition directed the respondent/husband to pay periodical amount of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month under Order 21 Rule 33 of the C.P.C. from the date of application, i.e., 26/05/2014. 20. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, due to aforesaid subsequent development, the appellant/wife is receiving total amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) per month from the year 2014-15. 21. We may hasten to add that recently in the case of Rajnesh Vs. 20. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, due to aforesaid subsequent development, the appellant/wife is receiving total amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) per month from the year 2014-15. 21. We may hasten to add that recently in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020 decided on 04/11/2020), the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the overall gamut of the provisions on maintenance under different enactments and after considering the entire case law on the subject, observed that the Civil Courts/Family Courts, while deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceedings, shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceedings and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. It is also observed that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes, however, it would be inequitable to direct the husband to pay the maintenance under each of the proceedings independent of the relief granted in the previous proceedings. It is further observed that after the maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceedings, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. 22. In addition, the son of the couple, who is born on 11/07/1999, now must have reached the age above 21. The pleading of the appellant/wife in her application is silent with regard to his current education. Therefore, there is no reason to consider this aspect. It emerges from the record that the original order of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) per month included the maintenance for the minor son too. Considering the date of birth of the minor son, i.e. 11/07/1999, he is now of age more than 21 years. We have doubt about his entitlement to receive the maintenance. The pleading in the application is silent with regard to his need for educational or other legitimate expenses. Given these facts, the appellant/wife in her individual capacity would be receiving Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) towards her maintenance. 23. We have doubt about his entitlement to receive the maintenance. The pleading in the application is silent with regard to his need for educational or other legitimate expenses. Given these facts, the appellant/wife in her individual capacity would be receiving Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) towards her maintenance. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, considering the subsequent development, i.e., order dated 10/02/2020 in Writ Petition No. 1630/2019 granting her additional periodical payment of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) per month from 26/05/2014 under Order 21 Rule 33 of C.P.C., and the age of the son, we do not find any rational ground to modify the order dated 07/07/2015. The Civil Application thus being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.