GURCHARAN KAUR ALIAS CHARNO Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises rather an interesting question of law. Its ambit is confined within the scope and applicability of the alimony principle embodied in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act). It has been brought to this Court by the wife since her petition for alimony was rejected by the first matrimonial Court

(2.) THE admitted case of the parties is that their marriage, which took place near about the year 1974, was annulled by a decree of nullity by the matrimonial Court at the instance of the husband on the success of his plea that the marriage had not been consummated owing to the impotence of the wife. That decree having become final gave rise to the present claim of the reputed wife against the reputed husband for alimony during her life -time. The claim met with resistance. The husband countered that he could not be held responsible for the payment of alimony as the reputed wife was neither a woman to whom alimony was admissible nor a person whose conduct or the circumstances of the case would justify the grant of alimony. Apart from the asserted right of the reputed wife, it was averred that he was unable to pay the sum of Rs. 400 per mensem as alimony because the wife was otherwise well provided for in the form of ornaments and precious clothes but also that he owned no land and was living with his father sharing mess with him. The first matrimonial Court framed the following two issues:

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the first matrimonial Court had fallen into a grave error in not holding the wife entitled to alimony. It would appear that the Court's attention was drawn to judicial precedents reported as N. Waralakshmi v. N. V. Hanumantha Rao,, 1978 M.L.J 21, Govindrao Ranoji Musale v. Anandibai and Anr., 1977 M.L.R 223, Gurcharan Singh v. Amarjit Kaur, 1979 M.L.J 385, and Dyal Singh v. Bhajan Kaur : A.I.R. 1973 P&H 44, but the Court after explaining them away came to the conclusion that the Court had to be influenced by consideration of the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case while dealing with an application for alimony moved under Section 25 of the Act, The Court opined that the importency of the wife itself disentitled her to claim maintenance because strictly speaking she could not be termed to be a "woman". This alone was the foundation for the dismissal of the claim of the Appellant -wife. Now it has to be seen as to whether the view taken by the Court stands the test of the scrutiny of the statute.