An application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not maintainable when the petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act is dismissed as withdrawn.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 2998 of 1990, as both of them have arisen out of the same order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), the wife was allowed Rs. 2,000 as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 6,000 as litigation expenses.

2. The controversy between the parties is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act in the context of the dismissal of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, for divorce by mutual consent. On August 23, 1985, the petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar: The said application was dismissed as withdrawn on August 9, 1987, which order reads as under :

"The applicant and the Counsel for the parties have made their statements. As per their statements recorded separately, the main application Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also application Under Section 24 and Under Section 26 of the Act are dismissed as withdrawn. The parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned".

3. It has been stated at the bar and not disputed that after the withdrawal of the said application under Section 13-B, the husband filed a petition for divorce against his wife which is pending in the Court at Ghaziabad where the parties are said to have last resided. Meanwhile the wife Smt. Chand Dhawan filed an application under Section 25 of the Act, for permanent alimony. There she also moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite which was allowed as observed earlier. Both the parties feeling aggrieved have filed these two separate petitions. The case has been referred to this Bench by the learned Single Judge because of the divergent judicial opinion expressed by this Court on the question whether an application under Section 25 of the Act, was maintainable when no decree for divorce as such was passed and the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, for grant of divorce by mutual consent, was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application under Section 25 is only maintainable if a decree has been passed under the Act. According to the learned Counsel, a decree means either a decree for divorce or a decree for restitution of conjugal rights as contemplated from Sections 9 to 13 of the Act. If the petition for divorce etc. is dismissed then no application under Section 25 of the Act is maintainable, as no decree can be said to have been passed In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Sushma v. Satish Chander, (1984) 86 Punjab Law Reporter Delhi 16; Durga Dass v. Smt. Tara Rani, 1971 Punjab and Haryana 141 (F.B.); Guriant Singh v. Nachhattar Kaur; 1981 Hindu Law Reporter 246 (F.B.); Gurcharan Kaur V. Ram Chand, A.I.R. 1979 Punjab and Haryana 206; Sarda Bai v. Shabti Lal, 1989 (1) Hindu Law Reporter 110; Ranganatham v. Shyamala, 1990(1) Hindu Law Reporter 474; Vinod Chandra Sharma v. Rajesh Pathak, A.I.R. 1988 Allahabad 150= II (1287) DMC 72 and Harcharan Singh v. Nachhattar Singh, (1987) 2 Hindu Law Reporter 184=11 (1987) DMC 305.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the word "decree" In Section 25 of the Act, means the decree-whether dismissing the petition for divorce etc. as such or passing any other decree. According to the learned Counsel, the term "decree" has to be given the same meaning as provided udder the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code). In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Smt. Swaran Lata v. Sukhvinder Kumar, 1986(1) Hindu Law Reporter 363;= =II (1986) DMC 181 Silla Jagannadha Prashad alias Ramu v. Silla Lalitha Kumari, 1988(1) Hindu Law Reporter 26=I (1988) DMC 319 (DB) and Manilal V