SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Mad) 43

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU
T.Chandra Rajan
Versus
K.Radha alias of Mahalakshmi
C.R.P.No.3728 of 1994
Decided On : 09-01-1995

Advocates Appeared:
V.Radhabishnan, for Petitioner.

The court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, without a separate application, if the issue is raised in the main petition itself.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 25 - MAINTENANCE - APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO GRANT MAINTENANCE - COURT CAN GRANT MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE ACT EVEN WITHOUT A SEPARATE APPLICATION, IF THE ISSUE IS RAISED IN THE MAIN PETITION ITSELF.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, on the ground of desertion by the wife. The wife filed an application for maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. The court granted divorce and also awarded maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Section 25 of the Act even without a separate application, if the issue is raised in the main petition itself. The court also held that the wife was entitled to maintenance and litigation expenses.

Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, without a separate application, if the issue is raised in the main petition itself.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 25 of the Act confer an enabling power upon the court itself while granting divorce or judicial separation to also pass an order for the maintenance of the wife. The contemplated application to be made by such parties has to be limited and confined to the case when the court while disposing of the main petition has not thought of passing an order for grant of maintenance and was silent on the said issue and not otherwise becomes essential or necessary to separately make an application even when the court chooses to decide about the same as part of the main petition particularly, as in this case by also disposing of simultaneously an application filed by the wife for maintenance along with the main petition for divorce.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband.

Judgment :

The above revision has been filed against the order dated 1.8.1994 passed in I.A.No.133 of 1991 while disposing of the main petition, H.M.O.P. No.16 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. The petitioner herein husband has filed main O.P. under Sec.13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriages Act. 1955, for divorce on the ground that the respondent/ wife has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition. It is seen that out of the wedlock a male and a female child were born and from May, 1984, onwards the respondent/ wife left without any reason deserting him, to her parents’ house and in spite of best efforts taken she was not amenable even to the panchayat and having deserted the petitioner is entitled to divorce as payed for. The wife denied the claim of the husband pleading that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage and that he has been in the habit of ill-treating the respondent, that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.4,000 and that for her maintenance and the maintenance of the children a sum of Rs.2,000 will be required. An application in I.A. No. 133 of 1991 was also filed by the wife seeking for a maintenance of Rs.2,000 per month and also, a sum of Rs.1,000 towards litigation expenses. Both the petition for divorce and application for maintenance were taken up for trial as could be seen from the issues framed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order. Learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, granted ultimately divorce in view of the fact that on the material placed on record there was no possibility of both the petitioner and the respondent living together peacefully and amicably as husband and wife and the grant of divorce would be in the interest of both parties. At the same time while dealing with the application I.A.No.133 of 1991 the court below came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.1,500 must be ordered to be paid per month towards the maintenance and a sum of Rs.1,000 towards the litigation expenses. The application as well as the main O.P. as noticed earlier has been disposed of by a common order.

2. The husband has filed the above revision challenging the order in I.A. No. 133 of 1991 on the ground that in the absence of any specific application under Sec.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court below could not have passed orders on an application really filed under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act awarding maintenance which could have effect for a period beyond the disposal of the main O.P. which ended in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that to the extent the maintenance has been ordered for the period covering even period subsequent to the disposal of the main O.P. on a permanent basis the court below lacks jurisdiction when there is no application at all therefor and no trial or disposal of such an application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the said ground of challenge at the time of hearing of the revision by inviting my attention to the provisions contained in Sec.25(l) of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads hereunder:

"25(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto., an 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 seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondents."

The said provision which provides for the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance provides that any c


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top