( 1 ) THIS appeal has been referred to a larger Bench as per the reference order dated 21st January, 1982. The facts of the case were that the husband Shri Satish Chander, had applied for divorce against his wife Shrimati Sushma ; this was successful and on 4th October, 1979, the Additional District Judge granted the divorce. The wife filed an appeal to the High Court which succeeded and so, the divorce was set aside. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings as well as the appeal, maintenance pendente lite was granted at Rs. 225. 00 per month to the wife.

( 2 ) AFTER the proceedings were over in the High Court, the wife applied for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This application was rejected by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, on the ground that such permanent alimony and maintenance can only be granted in case divorce is granted and not if the marriage subsists.

( 3 ) WHEN this matter came before the learned Single Judge in appeal by the wife, he was of the view that there was some ambiguity in the wording of the Act which required the matter to be decided by a larger Bench.

( 4 ) THE relevant Section in which the ambiguity occurs is Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It reads as follows : "25. Permanent alimony and maintenance :- (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 seen 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 Subsection (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 remarried 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. " The ambiguity is created by the words "at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto" which occur in this Section. The contention of learned counsel is that even if a divorce is not granted, there is a decree. This is on the contention that even if a suit is dismissed, a decree is passed and even if a suit succeeds, then also a decree is passed. But, we are of the view that the judgments mentioned in the learned Single Judge s refering order, namely, Kadia Harilal Purshottam v Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas, A. I. R. 1961, Gujarat 202; Shantaramgopalshet Narkar v. Hirabai w/o Shantaram Gopalshetnarkar and another, A. I. R. 1962, Bombay 27: Minarani Majumdar v. Dasarath Majumdar, A. I. R. 1963 Calcutta 428 : Shantaram Dinkar Karnik v. Malti Shantaram Karnik, A. I. R. 1964 Bombay 83, Akasam Chinna Babu v. Akasam Parbati and another, A. I. R. 1962 Orissa 163; Purshotam Kewalia v. Smt. Devki, A. I. R. 1973, Rajasthan 3 and Darshan Singh v. Mst. Daso, A. I. R. 1980, Rajasthan 102, have taken the right view and the passing of the decree in this context means the passing of the decree of divorce, restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation and not the passing of a decree dismissing