LexSMT. CHAND DHAWAN versus JAWAHARLAL DHAWAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
SIVIT. CHAND DHAWAN
v .
.JAWAHARLAL DHAWAN
JUNE 11, 1993.
[MADAN HOMAN PUNCHHI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL,JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-S.25 and Ss. 9w14, 24 & 28-'Any decree' in
S. 25-Dismissing of 111atri111011ial peririon, held, does not constitute 'only decree·
for award of permanent maintenance or ali111011y-Marital sra111s has TO be
C!{fected or disrupted for maintenance to be awarded-Evidence Act, 1862, s . .f 1
Hindu Marriage Acr, 1955-S. 25-Hindu Adoptions and Mai11tenance Act,
1956-S. 18-Held, Court cannot gra11t relief of maintenance simplicitor obrain-
able under one Act in proceedings under the other-Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. s. 125.
Imerpretarion ofStat11tes-Hind11 Marriage Act. 1955-S. 25-HinduAdop-
tions and Maintenance Acr, 1956-S. 18-He/d, where both sratwes codified and
clear on their subjects. liberality of imerpretation cannot permit interchangeabil-
ity so as to destroy distinction.
The P?rties were married in 1972 in Punjab. In 1985, a petition for .
divorce by riiutual consent was filed in court at Amritsar The appellant-wife
alleged that she was not a consenting par~·, and the petition was dismissed in
1987 following an agreement on the basis of which she would be put back in
the matrimonial home. However, barely three months later, the respondent-
husband filed a regular petition for divorce at Ghaziabad inter alia alleging
adultery against his wife. The appellant-wife refuted the charge. The Court
granted her maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 1,000 p.m. The husband not
paying this amount, the divorce proceedings stand sta~·ed.
On 22nd March, 1990 the appellant moved the DistrictJ udge, Amritsar
G
and was granted Rs. 6,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 2,000 as maintenance
pendente lite from the date of application under S. 24. She also claimed
permanent alimony and maintenance under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.
H
On appeal, the High Court held that an application under S. 25 was not
Q'i4
-
,,.r---
'~-
CHAND OHA WAN ,._ .IA W i\HARLAL
955
maintainable as the matrimonial court at amritsar had not passed an~· decree
A
-:;,,
for restitution of conjugal right'>, judicial separation, nullity or divorce.
.-
Sequelly it <1uashed the order under S. 24 of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. The right of permanent maintenance in favour of the hushand
or the wife is dependent on the Court passing a decree of the kind envisaged
under Ss. 9 to 14 of the Act. In other words, without the marital status being
aflccted or disrupted by the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage
Act the claim of permanent alimony was not to be valid as ancilliary or
incidental to such affectation or disruption.
Kadia Mari/al P11rsl10tlw111 v. Ka{/ia Li lava ti Gokaldas, AIR 1961 Guj 202;
Slwntaram GopalshetNarkarv. Hirabai, AIR 1962 Bom21;Minarani Majumdar
B
c
v. Dasarat/1 Majumdar, AIR 1963 Cal 428; Shantaram Dinkar Kamik ''·Ma/ti
Slwmaram Kamik, AIR 1964 Born S3;11kasam Chinna Babu \'.Akasam Parbati,
AIR 1967 Ori 163; Gurcharan Kaur v. Ram Chand, AIR 1979 P & H 206;
D
· Darslta11 Sin,r?ll , .• Mst. Daso .. AIR 1980 Raj 102; Smt. Sushama v. Sari sh
Cha11der, AIR 1984 Del 1; Vinod Chandra Shanna, .. Smt. Rajesh Pathak, AIR
1988 All 150 and Ranganatham v. ShYamala, AIR 1990 Mad 1, affirmed .
. S1111. Swara11 Lara v. Suklll'inder Kumar, (1986) 1 Hindu LR 363; Sadanand
Sallade-a Rawoo/ v. S11locha11a Sadanand Rawool, AIR 1989 Born 220; Surendra
Si11gfT Chauhan v .Mamra Chauhan, II 1990 Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 208;
Mo,•~ilal ka/aramji Jain v. Lakshmi Modi/al .lain, AIR 1991B.om440; and Sh ilia
kga1111adlw Prasadv. Smt. Shi/la Lalitha K11111ari1988Hindu LR 26,overruled.
Durga Das''· Sm!. Tara Rani, AIR 1971 P & H 141, referred to.
•
2. A Court intervening under the Hindu Marriage Act undoubtedly has
E
F
the power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance, if that power is
in\'oked atthe juncture when the marital status is affected or disrupted. ltalso
retains the power subsequently to be invoked on application ~y a party
entitled to 1·clief. And such order, in· all events, remains within the jurisdiction
G
of that court, to he altered or modified as future situations may warrant.
3. While sustaining her murriage and preserving her marital status, a
Hindu wife's claim to maintenance is codified is S.18 of the Hindu Adoptions
H
956
SUPREME COL"Jff REPORTS
(199'..l] 3 S.C.R.
A
and Maintenance Act, 1956 andExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.