SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Bom) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah, J.
Appellants: Shantaram Dinkar Karnik
Vs.
Respondent: Malti Shantaram Karnik
A.F.O.D. No. 426 of 1961
Decided On: 21.11.1962
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.B. Gandhi, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: H.K. Shah, Adv. (Amicus Curiae)

Under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court has jurisdiction to grant alimony only when a decree for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights is passed. Dismissal of a petition is not a decree contemplated by Section 25(1), and therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to grant alimony in such cases.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 25(1) - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO GRANT ALIMONY - CONDITIONS - DECREE FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS DISMISSED - NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT ALIMONY.

Fact of the Case:

Husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife had refused to live with him despite repeated requests. The wife contended that she was ill-treated by the husband and his mother and was driven out of the house. The trial court dismissed the husband's petition and granted alimony to the wife at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant alimony to the wife under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The court interpreted Section 25(1) to mean that the court could only grant alimony if a decree for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights was passed.

Issues: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant alimony to the wife under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "passing any decree" in Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, refers only to the passing of a decree for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights as provided for in Sections 9 to 13 of the Act. Dismissal of a petition is not a decree contemplated by Section 25(1), and therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to grant alimony in such cases.

Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed. The order of the trial court for payment of alimony was set aside, and the rest of its order was confirmed.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal by the husband against the order of the City Civil Court dismissing his petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and granting alimony to the wife at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The petition was made under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the ground upon which it was based was that in spite of repeated requests, the wife had refused to go and live with him in the written statement filed by the wife it was contended that she was constantly being ill-treated by her mother-in-law with the connivance of the husband and that she was ultimately driven out of the house. Accordingly, it was submitted that the husbands petition for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed and that provision for her maintenance be ordered to be made. Both the wife as well as the husband led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence and the other circumstances of the case held that the allegations made by the wife in her written statement were true, that she had every justification to refuse to go back and live with the husband and that, therefore, no decree for restitution of conjugal rights could be passed. Accordingly, the husbands petition was dismissed. While dismissing the petition, however, the learned Judge passed an order that the husband shall pay to the wife permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The husband then filed the present appeal in this Court challenging tha order of the learned Judge dismissing his petition as also the order granting alimony to the wife.

2. Before dealing with the contentions in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few more facts relating to the marital relations of the parties. The parties to the petition were married on 12th May 1952. After the marriage, they lived together for about three months, during which time, according to the wife, she was ill-treated both by the husband and his mother and eventually she was driven out of the house. In 1955 the husband presented a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of impotency of the wife. In 1956, that petition was dismissed and an appeal to this Court against the dismissal of that petition was also dismissed. The husband was, however, ordered to pay the costs of that petition and of the appeal to the wife. The wife did not take any immediate proceeding for the purpose of recovering these costs, but in 1958, she sent a letter to the husband demanding payment thereof. In reply to this letter, the husband by his letter dated 4th August 1958 asked her to go back and live with him and not to harass him. The wife thought it to be a trick on the part of the husband to evade payment of the costs and accordingly, she did not go back and live with him, nor did she send any reply to that letter. The husband then sent another letter to the wife dated 12th September 1958 once again asking her to go and live with him. The wife did not send any reply to that letter either nor did she go to live with him. Eventually, the husband filed the present petition for restitution of conjugal fights on 7th November 1958. As already stated, the husband failed to prove any desertion on the part of the wife. On the contrary, the learned Judge held that he was gutlty of ill-treatment and cruelty to the wife and accordingly, his petition was dismissed and in addition he was ordered to pay Rs. 40/- per month as and by way of alimony to the wife.

3. Mr. Gandhi in support of this appeal did not seriously contend that the order dismissing the husbands petition for restitution of conjugal rights was in any way bad. What he vehemently contended was that the learned Judge in this case had no jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to make an order for payment of alimony to the wife. According to Mr. Gandhi, the Court, may grant alimony under Section 25(1) only in a case where any of the decrees specified in Sections 9 to 13 of the Hind









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top