A court that has passed a decree in a main proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act also has jurisdiction to hear and decide an application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act, even after the decree has been passed.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. The applicant (non-Petitioner in the Lower Court) being aggrieved by the order passed by I Vth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 58A/97 on 19/1/98 over ruling the objections of the present applicant deciding issues No. 1 and 2 against the present applicant holding that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter has filed this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the non-applicant filed Civil Suit No. 93-A/93 for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained an ex parte decree on 25/10/96 from the Court of I Vth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. Against the said judgment and decree first appeal No. 608/96 was filed by the present applicant but the same was dismissed on 12/7/97. Being further aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the first appeal, the present applicant has preferred L.P.A. No. 359/97. In the said appeal a Division Bench of this Court has directed issuance of notice to the present non-applicant. It is not in dispute before me that in the said matter question of jurisdiction of the trial Court has been raised. During pendency of these proceedings the non-applicant filed an application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 58-A/97. The non-applicant interalia contended that she was entitled to an order for permanent alimony in her favour, therefore, the amount as has been claimed by her be awarded in her favour. The present applicant after receiving the notice from the Court made his appearance and filed his reply to the application on 8/11/97 interalia pleading that the non-applicant was not entitled to any amount (alimony) under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, further pleading that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in view of Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore the application be rejected.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following preliminary issues:

(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable ?

(2) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case ?

4. According to the applicant, in support of his objection, he filed number of documents including application filed on behalf of the non-applicant under Section 125 Cr. P. C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur; copy of the statement of the non-applicant recorded in 125 Cr. P.C. Proceedings and the marriage card of the parties.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge by Its order dated 19/1/98 over ruled both the objections and decided the issues in favour of the non-applicant, being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.

6. Submission of Shri Ravindra Shrivastava learned Counsel for the applicant was that in view of the language of Section 19, the trial Court had no jurisdiction, therefore neither the petition before the trial Court was maintainable nor the trial Court could assume jurisdiction. He further canvassed that the court below was unjustified in observing that as question of jurisdiction has already been found in favour of the non-applicant in the earlier proceedings, therefore the same would operate as res judicata. According to the present applicant, proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act are separate and distinct from the proceedings of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore the present applicant waw entitled to raise question of jurisdiction and the Court was bound to decide the matter afresh. It was further submitted that the trial Court was wrong in not appreciating that the question of jurisdiction was sub-judice in L. P. A., therefore the same would not be operate as res judicata and the court below was unjustified in deciding the issue against the present applicant. It was also contended that the court below failed to take into consideration the decuments filed by the present applicant and erred in holding that it has jurisdiction to hear an