Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies to all proceedings under the Act including proceedings for divorce and nullity of marriage. An application for maintenance under Section 25 can be made by a party to the proceedings either before or after the decree.

1. The question that is for consideration of this Full Bench is " whether a party to a decree of divorce can apply for maintenance under sub-section (1) of S.25 of Act 25 of 1955 after such a decree has been granted ?"

2. On August 23, 1968, a learned Single Judge affirmed the decree of divorce against Tara Rani alias Tara Devi respondent, obtained by her husband. Durga Dass appellant, from the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana. At the same time and in the same order the learned Judge proceeded to accept an application by the respondent under Sec.25 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955), and allowed a sum of Rs.50/- per mensem as alimony to her till remarriage and maintenance of chastity, making the amount of alimony a charge on the movable and immovable property of the appellant. It is against the order made under Sec.25 (1) of the Act by the learned Judge that this appeal has been made by the appellant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. On the side of the appellant, before the Division Bench, it was urged that in the case of a decree of nullity of marriage or decree of divorce, after such a decree has been made, having regard to Sec.25 of the Act, an application for alimony is not competent, because by reasons of such a decree the status of the parties as husband and wife comes to an end and the provisions of the section are only attracted so long as the parties continue in that status. Support for this view was sought from Mehta Gunvantry Maganlal ,v. Bai Prabha Keshavji, AIR 1963 Guj 242. On the other side, however reference was made to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Chander Gulati V/s. Parkash Vati, 1965 Cur LJ 696 (Punj), which did not support the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Gujarat Case, but as the case before the Division Bench was one arising out of proceedings for judicial separation under Sec.10 of the Act, it did not strictly apply to the present case. However, in view of the importance of the question, the argument on the side of the wife, the respondent, that Sec.25 of the Act refers to all proceedings, including proceedings in a decree of divorce, and so an application for alimony under it may be made by a party to the proceedings under the Act either before or after the decree, and in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement on the point, the question as above, was referred to a Full Bench, and this is how this appeal has come before us.

4. In the Act, Sec.25 which alone has been the subject of consideration during the arguments reads : " 25. (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree 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 gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant, as having regard to the respondents own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant and the conduct of the parties, it may be 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 respondent. (2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has been 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 has been made under this section has re-married 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 ". It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that as soon as a de