LAWS(ALL)-1993-10-1

GANGA DEVI Vs. C B JOSHI

Decided On October 01, 1993
GANGA DEVI Appellant
V/S
C.B. JOSHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent had filed a divorce petition against the appellant, which was granted on 27-9-1983. It was held by the Court below that the appellant had deserted the respondent and she did not want to live with the respondent, therefore, the marriage between the parties be terminated. The respondent had also raised a ground of mental cruelty for seeking divorce. This ground was based on the allegation of unchastity against the appellent, who was alleged to have told the respondent, her husband, on the very first day of marriage that she was having sexual relations with some third person, who was named in the divorce petition and she treated that man as her husband & did not allow the respondent to consummate the marriage with her. However, this plea was disbelieved by the Court below and it was held that the respondent-husband has failed to prove mental cruelty as alleged by him. Therefore, the ground for divorce of mental cruelty had failed. At the time of passing of the decree, the Trial Court did not pass any order with regard to alimony and it was observed that the question of maintenance allowance to the wife could be considered when application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made by her.

(2.) After decreeing the suit the wife seems to have made an application for payment of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That application was rejected by the Court below on 24-4-1988. The appellant-wife challenges the order of the Court below and prays that the order under appeal be set aside.

(3.) Court below is influenced by the allegtions levelled by the husband against the appellant-wife regarding her unchastity. The unchastity is taken as a ground for refusing the maintenance allowance. The Court below has also said that the appellant-wife has deserted the husband, therefore, it will not be proper to allow permanent alimony to the wife. According to the Court below the appellant had played a drama of marriage and she could not be entitled to permanent alimony.