(1) This is an appeal against the order and decree dated 27-5-1969 passed by the District Judge, Kathua, for a payment of monthly alimony at the rate of Rs 20/- to Mst. Vishano till she dies or remarriages and Rs. 15/- to Pawan Kumar minor son till he attains the age of majority" by the appellant.

(2) The brief facts are that the appellant was the husband of the respondent No 1. He instituted an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the allegation of her living in adultery. The application was decided in his favour on 13-5-1968 by means of an exparte decree. The appellant had further alleged that Pawan Kumar who was born of the respondent was not the son of the appellant but was the result of an adulterous life led by the respondent. This exparte decree has become final because after making an application for setting aside this exparte decree, the respondent did not press the application. These are the admitted facts before us.

(3) After the decree for divorce was passed, the respondent put in an application u/s 25 of the Act on 22-10-1968 claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her son Pawan Kumar. The trial court without perusing the objections of the appellant, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately passed the order and decree under appeal.

(4) Before we take up the other points involved in this case we are constrained to remark that the trial court had dealt with the matter, to say the least, in a very careless manner. In the objections with respect to this application for maintenance of the respondent, the appellant had stated at more than one place that the marriage between him and the respondent had been dissolved by a decree of the court dated 13-5-1968 and the respondent was living an unchaste life. The paternity of Pawan Kumar also was denied.

(5) It was however necessary for the trial court as well as for the learned counsel engaged in the case to conduct the case on the basis that marriage of the respondent with the appellant had been dissolved by a proper decree for divorce on 13-5-68 on the ground of the wife living an adulterous life. But nobody, it seems, cared to bestow any thought on this aspect of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued before us that the trial court did not frame any issue although a request was made in that behalf. However, in our opinion the factual position being admitted, there was no necessity of framing any issue on any point of fact in the case. The only point for consideration by the court below was whether the wife namely the respondent Mst. Vishano Devi could be entitled to any maintenance allowance against the appellant on the facts of the case. The order of the trial court dated 27-5-1969 seems to have been passed under section 25 of the Act. That section applies to grant of permanent alimony or maintenance to the wife or husband, as the case may be, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto under certain conditions. This section applies only either to the husband or to the wife. The section pertaining to minor children is Section 26 of the Act and not Section 25. Anyhow in this case whether one section applies or the other, is not material.

(6) Under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act 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 shall rescind the order, which in other words means that even if an order under this section is passed in favour of the wife and it is later on proved that she lives in unchaste life, the order to be rescinded. In this case the wife has been held to be living an adulterous life and Pawan Kumar has been held to be not a child of the appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document