M.C. JAIN, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-10-1978 passed by the District Judge, Shri Ganganagar, whereby the appellants petition under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), was dismissed and the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner-respoadent for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month.

2. The appellants case was that the parties were married about seven years ago according to Hindu rites. They lived as husband and wife at Chak 3 M.D., Tehsil Anupgarh, and a daughter was bom out of the wedlock. About three years ago, the non-petitioner left the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse and went to her parents. Despite several efforts, she did not return to her matrimonial home. The non-petitioner admitted the other facts as averred by the petitioner. She, however, denied the allegations made against her with regard to leaving the company of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse. After traversing these allegations, it was averred by her that the petitioner in her absence married one Mst. Puni about 3-4 years ago without her consent and when her father came to leave her at the petitioners house the petitioner refused to accept her. The non-petitioner had no alternative, but under compulsion had to go back with her father. It was also averred that in the presence of the second wife, it will not be in her interest to live with the petitioner and she will have to suffer physical and mental torture and she will be deprived of her matrimonial rights. She also claimed maintenance @ Rs. 300/-per month from the petitioner for herself and her daughter.

3. The learned District Judge framed as many as four issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing arguments the learned District Judge dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and awarded maintenance % Rs. 303/- per month. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner married the second wife and there was reasonable excuse for the non-petitioner for not living with the petitioner.

4. Dis-satisfied with the judgment, decree and order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard Shri M. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri S. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-respondent.

6. As regards the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, Shri Garg has not seriously contested the appeal and in my opinion, rightly so. The finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 1, relating to second marriage by the petitioner, is unimpeachable. The petitioner has led no evidence and as such there was no escape for the learned District Judge except to hold that the petitioner married a second wife and on that basis further it has been found that there was reasonable cause for the non-petitioner not to live with the petitioner. The statement of Mst. Daso and her father Jangirsingh (P.W. 3) were to the effect that the non-petitioner was turned out from the house and not accepted by the petitioner in view of his second marriage, although Mst. Daso stated that she is still prepared to live with the petitioner, provided she is kept with love. There are no reasons to differ from these findings arrived at by the learned District Judge.

7. The main attack of Shri Garg is on the order awarding maintenance to the non-petitioner. Shri Garg urged that when the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, then under section 25 of the Act, no alimony could be awarded. Section 25 of the Act would be attracted only when any decree is passed granting any relief under sections 9 to 13. The order awarding maintenance under sec. 25 in the present case, according to Shri Garg, is without jurisdiction, as, such an order can only be passed "at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto". Shri Garg in support of his contention placed relianc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document