A wife is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even if the husband's income is meagre, if she has no income of her own and is financially dependent on him.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by a divorced wife against the respondent who was married to her. The claim is for permanent alimony of Rs. 150. 00. p. m. u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act ).

( 2 ) THESE are the facts. The appellant Sheela was married to the respondent Tungal Singh on 17. 6. 70. In 1979 the wife brought a petition for divorce against the husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty. She was able to prove both. So the ADJ granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties.

( 3 ) SHEELA made a claim for permanent alimony. This was negatived by the learned judge on two grounds. Firstly, the judge held held that the income of Singh was only Rs. 328. 00. p. m. and he had to maintain himself and the two children of the marriage. She felt that the salary amount was hardly sufficient for the maintenance of the father and his two sons and therefore did not award anything to Sheela. Secondly the judge held that Sheela was quite young and granting of permanent alimony would amount to depriving her of the chance of resettling in life. So on the ground that it was not a fit case for grant of permanent alimony, the learned judge refused to make an award in her favour. From this order dated 1. 7. 82 Sheela appeals to this court, [in para 4, S. 25 is reproduced].

( 5 ) THE learned judge found that Sheela has no income of her own. There is nothing for her maintenance and support. So she is entitled to permanent alimony and maintenance u/s 25 (1 ). The two reasons given by the learned judge are not good grounds for refusing permanent alimony to Sheela. That the salary of Rs. 328. 00. is insufficient for the maintenance of the father and his two sons, is not a ground which ought to be taken against Sheela. On this point Mr. Nayyar on behalf of Sheela has brought to my attention a certificate of salary issued by the office of Singh. This certificate shows that the salary of Singh on the date of the certificate, i. e. 29. 6. 1982 was Rs 434. 20 after deducting General Providt Fund and Insurance amounting to Rs. 34. 00. He was getting Rs. 396. 00. as his take-home pay. This was his salary on 29. 6. 82, as I have said. After this date there have been payments of dearness allowance by the Government. So I should think that today he must be getting approximately Rs. 500. 00 as salary. Rs. 450. 00 should be his take-home pay after deducting Rs. 50. 00 on account of G. P. Fund and Insurance.

( 6 ) IN most cases the standard of living of one or both of the parties will have to suffer because there will be two families to support instead of one. When this occurs, the court clearly has to decide what the priorities are to be and where the inevitable loss should fall. The wife is the financially dependent spouse. She is potentially likely to suffer greater financial loss from the dissolution or annulment of the marriage than the husband. But her need cannot be denied. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the court has to award a reasonable amount. The cases decided under the Act should not be followed slavishly, in the words of Scarman L. J. :

"it would be unfortunate if the very flexible and wide-ranging powers conferred upon the court should be cut down or forced into this or that line of decisions by the courts. " (Chamberlain Vs. Chamberlain. (1974) 1 ALL E. R. 33, 38 CA.

( 7 ) IT is of the essence of the discretionary situation that he court should preserve the utmost elasticity to deal with each case on its ows facts. The value of the reported decisions as precedents is not very great. They are decisions on the facts of the particular case before the adjudicator.

( 8 ) IT has been well said that these provisions form "a code on the continental style, laying down many of the basic principles which the courts should apply, although not descending into any great detail as to how any individual case should be decided. " No hard and fast rule can be laid down. The ultimate evaluation of the specif