The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act allow for broader interpretation in granting alimony and maintenance, and making provisions for the welfare of the wife and children.

Nirmal Yadav, J.

1. This is husbands appeal challenging the findings of the trial Court only with regard to the relief clause.

2. The appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The learned trial Court accepted the grounds of desertion and cruelty pleaded by the appellant and granted decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. The learned trial Court, however, observed that it can not lose sight of the fact that the couple has three grown up and marriageable daughters born out of the wedlock. They cannot be left to bear the vagaries of life and, therefore, directed the appellant to perform certain obligations. It was directed that appellant-husband would transfer house No. 517-A situated in Mohalla Gher Sodhian, Patiala, where respondent-wife and three daughters were residing at that time, in the name of respondent-wife and three daughters in equal shares within one month from the date of the decree and in case, the house could not be transferred, then he would pay Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to the respondent for purchase of a house in the name of herself as well as three daughters. The trial Court further directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- each through bank draft for the marriage of three daughters. The trial Court also directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife till she re-marriages, failing which the decree would be a nullity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, argued that respondent-wife did not file any application claiming permanent alimony and maintenance, which is a condition precedent as provided under Section 25 of the Act. It is further argued that the trial Court could exercise its power of granting alimony only on filing of such an application by the wife. A decision to grant permanent alimony would require to consider the earnings of the appellant-husband, the conduct of the parties and other facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court could not grant permanent alimony and maintenance unless both the parties were given opportunity to place material before Court supporting their claim. In support, the learned counsel referred to titled as D. Balakrishnan V/s. Pavalamant and Ors., and 1984 H.L.R. 489 titled as Meerabai V/s. Laxminarayan Mishra. The basic argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that ho conditional decree could be passed by the trial Court. The grant of maintenance should have been ordered independently while passing the decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. The learned counsel further argued that trial court could not grant Rs. 2,00,000/- each for the marriage of three daughters under the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. The maintenance could only be granted to the spouse concerned and not to the children. The learned counsel argued that decree of divorce is an executable decree in view of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. It is argued that where the decree or order relating to alimony or maintenance or expenses for the litigation is passed, it has to be treated as a money decree and has to be executed as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Any enforcement of the decree otherwise than by execution, is not maintainable.

4. In the present case, marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.3.1975. The parties lived and cohabited together at Patiala upto 1988. Thereafter, the husband shifted to Jammu. Out of the wedlock, three daughters, namely, Parminder Kaur, Rupinder Kaur and Sumeet Kaur were born. Parties lived together upto 1992 and since then respondent-wife has been living separately. According to the appellant-husband, behaviour of respondent-wife was unbearable and uncalled for; the agony and tension thereof resulted into cruelty to him. The respondent persisted