A spouse is entitled to permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite the annulment of the marriage, unless their conduct disentitles them to maintenance under the general principles of law. The earning potential of a spouse should be considered in determining the quantum of permanent alimony.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act), has been filed by the husband against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 25th March, 1975, by which he has allowed to the respondent wife a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 per month with effect from 9th August, 1974 under section 25 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE fact s leading to this appeal are that the appellant and the respondent were married according to the Hindu rites. The respondent- wife filed an application for annulment of the said marriage on the ground that the husband had been married to one Pushpa Sharma earlier in 1966 which marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 28th May, 1970 by Mr. K. S. Sidhu, then Additional District Judge, in Matrimonial Case No. 46 of 1970 and that the appellant contracted the marriage with the respondent within one year on 16th February, 1971 in contravention of the provisions of section 15 of the Act which debarred him from marrying before the expiry of one year from the date of the decree of divorce. The main relief claimed by the respondent was annulment of the marriage on the aforesaid ground, but in the alternative, she claimed judicial separation on the ground of alleged cruelty. The said petition was tried and has resulted in a decree of annulment of marriage passed by Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, dated 9th August, 1974. (a certified copy of the said order has been placed on the file of the appeal before me but not on the original record) although there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the marriage between the parties having been declared void ah initio by the said order of Mr. Jagdish Chandra.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER on or about 18th November, 1974 the respondent wife moved an application in the court below for grant of permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act and she claimed alimony of Rs. 200 per month. The petition was contested and the main defence was that the respondent before me had ceased to be the wife after the passing of the decree for annulment of the marriage and as such had no locus standi to apply for, or obtain a permanent alimony. The other ground of defence was that the respondent was herself earning. This application was with the consent of the parties tried on affidavits. The court below repelled both the contentions of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant was employed as a stenographer in the Central Water and Power Commission and according to the salary certificate, his total remuneration was Rs. 498. 40 p. m. out of which the Provident Fund deduction, compulsory additional D. A. and C. G. H. S. were allowed to be deducted, while the instalments of plot and bus fares were not allowed, and thus his net income was determined at Rs. 425. 90 p. m. The parties did not have any child, but the appellant was held entitled to maintain his aged mother. The allegation of the appellant that the respondent was employed was rejected in view of the affidavit of the respondent as well as her statement recorded in the court and finally the court observed that she had a potentiality to earn. Under the circumstances, the court granted an alimony of Rs. 50 per month to the wife with effect from 9th August, 1974, It may be noticed that the decree of the court dated 9th August, 1974 by which the marriage between the parties had been annulled has not been challenged by any appeal, nor in the appeal before me and the same has become final and binding.

( 4 ) THE attack of the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to the order granting alimony. It must be said to the credit of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has very fairly not challenged the quantum of maintenance nor has the respondent filed any crossobjection or cross appeal against the same. Though the amount appears to me to be small and only symbolic, still both the parties are apparently