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

1987 Supreme(All) 94

V.P.MATHUR
VINOD CHANDRA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH PATHAK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.SAPRU, R.P.GOEL

V. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order, passed by Mr. R. S. Tripathi, the then Vth Additional District Judge, on 19-1-84, in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1983, is directed against an order granting permanent alimony under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to the respondent.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the proceedings for a decree of divorce were going on in the court below between the parties at the instance of the husband Vinod Chandra Sharma. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition for divorce on 19-1-84 and by the present impugned order of the same date he passed the order granting Rs. 350/- per month as permanent alimony in favour of the wife and against the husband. It is contended that this order is patently illegal and cannot be allowed to stand.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. Permanent alimony and maintenance under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act can only be granted if divorce is granted but not during the subsistence of the marriage. The word decree is used in matrimonial cases in a special sense different from that in which it is used in the Civil P. C. The use of the word decree in S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act means t






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top