IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
Vijayashree – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nishant Arvind Kale – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 125 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2021
Permanent Alimony - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 25 - 25(1), 25(2), 25(3)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife appealed the dismissal of her prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon decreed divorce by mutual consent without considering her prayer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mode and form of the application under Section 25 for claiming permanent alimony is immaterial, and the court has to consider the parameters as guided in the provision itself. The court remanded the matter for deciding the issue of permanent alimony in accordance with law.
Issues: Failure to consider the appellant's prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The 'application' as referred to in Section 25 of the Act implies any application either in writing or oral for the prayer of permanent alimony and maintenance. The mode and form of the application for claiming permanent alimony is immaterial, and the court has to consider the parameters as guided in the provision itself.
Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed with costs and disposed of accordingly. The matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding the issue of permanent alimony in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
1. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Onkar Ghare, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree in R.C.A. No. 33/2018 dated 07/12/2018 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20/12/2017 in H.M.P. No. 78/2017, passed the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon which failed to consider the prayer for permanent alimony of the appellant-wife while decreeing divorce by mutual consent.
3. This Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
(ii) Whether wife can claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as she is divorcee, after passing the decree of divorce?
4. With regard to the substantial questions of law at serial No. 2, both the learned counsel are at consensus that Section 25 of the Act does permit the divorcee spouse to claim maintenance from the other spouse even subsequent to the passing of the decree of divorce, subject to certain conditions specified therein. Hence, there is no need to discuss on this question. For ready reference text of Section 25 of the Act is reproduced below:
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.]”
5. Before adverting to answer the first substantial question of law, it would be necessary to have a glance at the facts leading to filing of this appeal. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25/03/2016. Since there was matrimonial disharmony and differences between the parties they moved a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon dissolved the marriage between the parties by recording its satisfaction that the parties have not been able to live together. It is the grievance of the appellant/wife that both the courts below have failed to consider her prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not give up her right of permanent alimony and maintenance. The appellant in her affidavit before the trial Court has specifically stated that the respondent is serving as a Medical Officer in Government Hospital at Murtizapur Dist. Akola and drawing the sa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.