An unchaste wife is not entitled to claim permanent alimony or maintenance from the husband under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 1 ) A very short point calls for decision in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellant Sachindra and the respondent No. 1 Banamala are both Hindus and the marriage between the two was solemnised according to Hindu rites, on Falgoon 19, 1358 B. S. (1951 ). There was a daughter born to them, while hying a wedlock, sometime in the month of Bhadra. of the year 1360 B. S. (1953 ).

( 3 ) PRIYANATH, the co-respondent, described in the memorandum of appeal as the respondent No. 2, is the husband to one of the sisters of Banamala. Alleging that Banamala was living in adultery with the said Priyanath, the appellant filed a petition, under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, claiming that his marriage with Banamala be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

( 4 ) THE husband led evidence to prove that the wife was living in adultery with Priyanath. The respondent wife did not examine herself nor did she examine any witness to prove her innocence. The co-respondent Priyanath did not contest. On consideration of the evidence the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of adultery was proved against the wife. He, therefore, passed a decree for divorce, dissolving the marriage between the two. Banamala, the wife, did not appeal against the decree and, therefore, decree granting divorce is now final.

( 5 ) AT the close of the hearing of the case, before the trial Court, the respondent No. 1 wife filed an application, claiming Rs. 40/- per month as maintenance for herself and Rs. 25/- per month as maintenance for the daughter, who was admittedly in the custody of her mother. The learned District Judge fallowed the application to the extent that a decree for maintenance amounting to Rs. 30/- per month for the divorced wife and Rs. 20/- per month for the daughter was passed. The mother was given custody of the daughter under the decree. The propriety of this portion of the decree is being disputed before us at the instance of the plaintiff Sachindra.

( 6 ) MR. Shyama Charan Mitter, learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, contended in the first place, that under Section 25 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance was payable by "the respondent" to "the applicant". In all divorce suits, it was contended, the respondent is the defendant, against whom a decree for

divorce is claimed, and the alleged adulterer is the co-respondent. Therefore, the respondent wife, who was the defendant in the instant case, it was contended, was not entitled to claim maintenance against the husband, who was not the respondent but the plaintiff in the suit or the applicant claiming divorce.

( 7 ) ATTRACTIVE though the argument may appear at the first sight, it has no substance. The dictionary meaning of the word "respondent'' is "let him answer. " That is to say, let the person, against whom a relief is claimed, answer that he is not liable for the claim. In a matrimonial cause the defendant is called the respondent because the wife or the husband, who may be the defendant, has to answer the charges on which divorce is sought. According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary"the defendant to a quarter sessions appeal is called the respondent; so, generally, of the defendant to a petition. So, of appeals generally, the party (whether plaintiff or defendant) against whom the appeal is brought, is called the respondent. "in our opinion the word respondent is used in Section 25 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, not in the orthodox sense in which the word is generally used in matrimonial cases, but in the Sense of an opposite party to a petition or as Stroud says "defendant to a petition". There is good reason why this neutral term "respondent" was chosen in describing the party liable to pay permanent alimony, as in Section 25 (1 ). Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 raid the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the wife alone is entitled to claim alimony. Therefore, in describing the person liable