Sir, I filed divorce petition and in return my wife filed application u/s 24 maintenance. she mentioned about my daughter expenses in application. In order, court specifically mentioned that my wife educational qualification is very impressive and she worked before and after marriage, although no proof of current job. Also court mention about my daughter school expenses .My income Rs.10K per month. In last para of order, court awarded mentioning “ since the respondent has no source of income to support herself therefore she is entitled to receive maintenance pendent lite from the petitioner to the tune of rs. 5k per month from the date of the present application. I ( & my lawyer also) believed this amount is for both my wife and my child, so I was okay. Today I received summon for crpc 125 , filed by my wife on behalf of my daughter. My questions are:
Can I seek from the court (application, RTI or what) what was the ratio of maintenance amount for my wife and my daughter. no bifurcation was in order.
No, you cannot seek any clarification as the order itself clearly mentioned that " since the Respondent has no...."
If the maintenance amount was only for my wife, can I appeal in high court (5 months have passed of session court order) on grounds that I was mistaken that amount was for both my wife and daughter. If not , should I file review petition u/s sec24 asking court to stop maintenance for my wife, as I am willing to give 5K/month to my child under crpc 125. My wife can earn (highly qualified) ,but my child can’t.
I would advise you to challenge it as firstly the time limit for filing a review is already over. Secondly, review petitions are rarely allowed. You can challenge it in the HC using the FC observation that wife is well-educated and has worked before and after marriage. You need not mention that you were mistaken. You can file a Writ against the order as there is no limitation for filling a Writ.
You can also highlight the conduct of your wife who rather drawing the attention of the Court by filing a review that no order was passed for maintenance of the daughter, instead initiates another legal procedure.