LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-75

SHYAMLAL MEENA Vs. DURGABAI MEENA

Decided On March 11, 2008
SHYAMLAL MEENA Appellant
V/S
DURGABAI MEENA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 26-7-07 passed by additional District Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 60-A/05, whereby the application filed by the appellant for divorce was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and it was directed that the appellant shall pay a sum of rs. 3,000/- per month as permanent alimony, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for appellant submits that grievance of the appellant is that no direction can be issued by the learned Court below regarding payment of permanent alimony where the suit for divorce has been dismissed. Learned Counsel further submits that since in the present case the petition for divorce was dismissed, therefore, learned Court below committed jurisdictional error in holding the appellant liable for payment of permanent alimony @ rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned Counsel further submits that as per proceedings initiated by the respondent for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. PC registered as M. Cr. C. No. 142/05 was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate First Class mandsaur vide order dated 24-8-06 against which Criminal Revision was filed by the respondent which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 197/06 and the same was dismissed on 13-7-07 on the ground that respondent is not residing with the appellant without any sufficient cause. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Court below committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of permanent alimony.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent submits that there is no bar for issuance of direction of permanent alimony, when the suit for divorce is dismissed. Learned Counsel submits that the direction issued, was passed on the application filed by the respondent. It is also submitted that after holding inquiry regarding financial status of the appellant learned Court below has issued the impugned direction which requires no interference. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.