When an application filed for any relief under the Hindu Marriage Act is dismissed, an application under Section 25 of the Act will not lie.

P. L. N. SARMA, J.

( 1 ) THE husband is the appellant in this appeal. Originally he filed O. P. No. 148 of 1984 on the file of the Illrd Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Pending the said application, the wife filed I. A. No. 707 of 1992 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as "the Act") seeking permanent alimony. After trial, O. P. No. 148 of 1984, filed by the husband for divorce was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. In the same Judgment, the learned Judge allowed i. A. No. 707 of 1992 filed by the wife and granted a sum of Rs. 700/- per month as permanent alimony both to her (wife) as well as their female child with effect from the date of the order, i. e. , 16-7-1992.

( 2 ) THE husband filed C. MA No. 1062 of 1992 questioning the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing the application filed by him for divorce. We have already dismissed the said appeal by our judgment dated 21-7-1994.

( 3 ) THE present C. M. A. is filed against the order passed by the learned Judge in I. A. No. 707 of 1992 granting permanent alimony as mentioned above.

( 4 ) THE only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the husband-appellant is that the jurisdiction under Section 25 of "the Act" can only be exercised by the Court while granting a decree for divorce, nullity, restitution of conjugal rights and the like and not when the application filed for those reliefs is dismissed by the lower Court. In other words, the contention is that when an application filed seeking reliefs under the provisions of "the act" is dismissed, no relief can be granted under Section 25 of "the Act" even at the instance of the respondent who succeeded in the proceeding.

( 5 ) IN support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in Ranganatham vs. Shyamala (1) AIR 1990 Madras 1, Sattayya vs. Ammannamma (2) 1971 (1) ALT 233, minarani vs. Dasarath (3) AIR 1963 Calcutta 428 and Dharamshi Premji vs. Bai Sakar Kanji (4) AIR 1968 Gujarat 150. The Judgments reported in Ranganatham vs. Shyamala (1st cited supra) and Minarani vs. Dasarath (3rd cited supra) do support the contention of the learned counsel.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, relying upon a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Silla Jagannadha prasad vs. Silla Lalitha Kumari (5) 1987 (1) alt 631, contended that even when the application filed seeking relief Under the provisions of "the Act" is dismissed, yet at the instance of the respondent, permanent alimony can be granted under Section 25 of "the Act". This decision is directly in point and fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 7 ) BUT there is a judgment of the supreme Court reported in Chand Dhawan vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan (6) (1993) 3 SCC 406 which squarely covers the present case. In the said case, it was held that "any decree" occurring in Section 25 of "the Act" takes in only decrees granting reliefs which disturb the marriage, or confer or take away any legal character or status relating to the marriage, and the decree of dismissal of the application will not fall within the meaning of "any decree".

( 8 ) THIS decision of the Supreme court while approving the decisions referred to supra (1 to 4) and others specifically over-ruled the view taken in Silla Lalitha kumari s case (supra 5 ). It would be relevant to refer to the observations of the learned judges of the Supreme Court in this connection which are as under : "the matrimonial Court, a Court of special jurisdiction, is not meant to pronounce upon a claim of maintenance without having to go Into the exercise of passing a decree, which implies that unless it goes onwards, moves or leads through, to affect or disrupt the marital status between the parties. By rejecting a claim, the matrimonial Court does make an appealabte decree in terms of Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document