( 1. ) IN this appeal preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the husband/appellant has called in question the justifiability and the legal validity of the judgment and decree dated 18-10-93 passed in Civil Suit No. 22-A/91 by the learned District Judge, Hoshangabad to the extent that the said Court has granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month at the time of passing of the decree under Section 25 of the Act.

( 2. ) THE appellant as plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and dessertion. Many an averment was putforth to obtain a decree for divorce. An application preferred under Section 13 of the Act was resisted by the wife on the ground that she had not misbehaved in a cruel manner and the factum of dessertion, as putforth by the plaintiff, did not deserve consideration.

( 3. ) DURING the pendency of the suit an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed and the learned Trial Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month.

( 4. ) THE leaned Trial Judge considering the totality of circumstances, evidence brought on record and being satisfied granted a decree for divorce in favour of the husband. While so doing he has also granted permanent alimony in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 25 of the Act.

( 5. ) ASSAILING the aforesaid part of the decree Mr. A. D. Deoras, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a singular contention that the learned Trial Judge has fallen into grave error by exercising the power under Section 25 of the Act when neither an independent application in that regard was filed nor any stance, in the written statement, was putforth.

( 6. ) DESPITE service of notice there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent/wife.

( 7. ) ON a perusal of the plaint, written statement and the documents brought on record it clearly transpires that there was no application for grant of permanent alimony. No such stand was setforth in the written statement. In this context it is profitable to refer to Section 25 of the Act. It reads as under:-

"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.-- (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 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 respondents own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, it 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 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 remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remarried chaste, or, if such party is the husband that he has bad sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order such manner as the Court may deem just. "

( 8. ) MR. Deoras, learned Senior Counsel has commended me to the decision rendered in the case of Jitbandhan v. Gulab Devi, 1983 MPLJ Note 4, wherein the learned Chief Justice spoke thus :-

"the jurisdiction under Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is attracted on application made to the Court for that purpose by eit