RAJAGOPALAN Vs. KAMALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the lower court granting permanent maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs. 111 a month as against the appellant herein.

(2.) The appellant herein married the respondent on. 12-5-1962. They lived together only for a few months. and I hereafter the respondent left the husband and went to live with her parents. The appellant had been making attempts to bring herback. As the said attempts failed, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 0. P. 56 of 1976,and obtained a decree for restitution Of conjugal rights on 6-5-1975. The respondent however, did not obey the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights and she did not go and live with her husband. Thereafter, in view of the said conduct of the respondent refusing to come and live with him even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been passed on 6-5-1975, the appellant sought a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between him and the respondent in 0. P. 52 of 1977. In the said 0. P., the respondent admitted that even after the order of restitution of conjugal rights was passed, she did not go and live with her husband, and that she was not willing to go and live with him. In view of the said attitude of the respondent, 0. P. No. 52 of 1977 was allowed, and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed on 14-11-1977.

(3.) Subsequent to the said decree of divorce, the respondent filed I. A. No. 897 of 1977 in 0. P. 52 of 1977. for the grant of parmanent alimony and maintenance u/s. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In the said petition, she claimed Rs. 5000 towards permanent alimony and Rs. 200 towards monthly maintenance. It was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the application u1s. 25 filed by the respondent long after the decree of divorce had been passed, is not maintainable, and that in any event, the claim made by the respondent for Rs. 5000 as permanent alimony and Rs. 200 as monthly maintenance was highly excessive.