BALAKRISHNA KURUP Vs. BHARGAVI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the petitioner in OP. No. 150 of 1976 of the Munsiff's Court, Tellicherry. The respondent herein was the respondent in the OP. also. OP. No. 150 of 1976 was moved by the appellant for dissolution of marriage. It was filed on 30-7-1976. The wife (respondent in the OP.) filed I. A. No. 168 of 1977 on 13-1-1977 under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act claiming permanent alimony of Rs. 200 per mensem. A sum of Rs. 40/- was also awarded by way of cost of the proceedings in I.A. No. 167/77. The appellant filed AS. No. 256 of 1977 before the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry. The order of the Trial Court was confirmed. The petitioner in O.P. No. 156 of 1976 (the husband) has come up in second appeal.

(2.) Appellant's counsel, Mr. T. V. Ramakrishnan, raised only one contention in the second appeal. According to counsel, the application under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act was filed by the respondent on 13-1-77, on which day the Madras Marumakkathayam Act stood repealed by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System Abolition Act 1975 (Act 30 of 1976). Act 30 of 1976 came into force on 1-12-1976. Application No. 168 of 1977 was filed by the respondent in the Trial Court on 13-1-1977, long after the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Act 22 of 1933) stood repealed from the statute book. The Trial Court had no jurisdiction to consider the matter, much less to grant the relief prayed for. On that short ground, the orders of the courts below are illegal and without jurisdiction arid deserve to be annulled.

(3.) On the other hand, respondent's counsel, Mr. P. V. Madhavan Nambiar, argued that IA. No. 168 of 1977 claiming permanent alimony was filed by the respondent during the pendency of O. P. No. 150 of 1976. The appellant's counsel filed OP. No. 150 of 1976 on 30-7-1976 when the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Act 22 of 1933) was in force. On that day, or immediately thereafter, and during the time when the said OP. was pending, an interlocutory application under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act was permissible and competent. The fact that during the pendency of the OP. the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 was repealed, will not alter the situation. Rights have accrued to the respondent to invoke S.10B of the Act claiming permanent alimony. A corresponding liability was also incurred by the appellant in O. P. No. 150 of 1976 for the payment of permanent alimony if the court is moved in that behalf. In this view of the matter, counsel contended that I. A. No. 168 of 1977 was competent and the courts below were justified in granting the relief under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932.