A gross sum awarded as permanent alimony under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be rescinded under Section 25(3) upon the wife's remarriage.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent (wife) obtained a decree for divorce against the appellant (husband) on 8-4-1960. The decree declared that the wife and the husband stood divorced from that day and the appellant was to pay to the respondent a sum of rs. 3000/- within a month from that day failing which she was to recover the amount by execution. She had claimed a gross sum towards permanent alimony on the ground that she being a Brahmin would not be able to remarry. In the judgment the learned District Judge did not give the basis as to how he granted a gross sum of Rs. 3000/- towards permanent alimony. Admittedly the appellant has not made any payment in satisfaction ot the decree. The respondent started an execution case which is pending. She remarried in January 1961 to one Chittaranjan Goswami, On 8-9-1962 the appellant filed an application with a prayer that the decree dated 8-4-1960 be rescinded or modified under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The respondent filed an objection. The learned District Judge found that the story of remarriage was true, but dismissed the application on the ground that the decree awarding a gross sum of Rs. 3000/- could not be rescinded as it was payable at a time a month after the decree. Against the order of the learned District Judge dated 3-4-1963 dismissing the petition, this appeal has been filed. The view of the learned District Judge is assailed as being contrary to law.

( 2 ) SECTION 15 of the Act prescribes--"when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again : provided that it shall not be lawful for the respective parties to marry again unless at the date of such marriage at least one year has elapsed from the date of the decree in the Court of the first instance. " the remarriage of the respondent with her second husband in January 1961 was within one year from the date of the decree and as such the second marriage is not lawful. Thus though in fact there was a remarriage, it cannot have any recognition in law being hit by the proviso to Section 15. This aspect of the matter was not presented before the learned District Judge. This finding, however, would not dispose of the application as it is maintainable under Section 25 (3) of the Act, if the wife has not remained chaste. In view of the admitted position that she had a second marriage, she cannot be said to have remained chaste. The maintainability of the application for rescission of the decree under Section 25 (3) must therefore be closely examined.

( 3 ) SECTION 25 of the Act enacts-25.

(1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, 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 and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immoveable property of the respoadent. (2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in trie circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under Sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the Court may deem just (3) If the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order