CHUNI LAL GULATI Vs. KRISHANA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chuni Lal petitioner obtained a decree for divorce against Krishna Rani respondent on Oct. 11, 1979 from the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh. On Oct. 17. 1979 the respondent moved an application in the same Court under S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter 'the Act') for permanent alimony. In the meantime the respondent had filed an appeal against the decree of divorce dated Oct. 11, 1979 passed against her. The petitioner appeared in Court in proceedings initiated under S. 25 of the Act and raised on objection that the claim for permanent alimony was pre-mature in view of the appeal filed by the respondent against the decree for divorce. The proceedings under S. 25 of the Act were stayed till the disposal of appeal filed by the respondent against the decree of divorce. The appeal filed by the respondent against the decree of divorce was dismissed. Her letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on Aug. 21, 1981, On Nov 6. 1981. The respondent submitted an application in the Court of District Judge for the restoration of the proceedings under S. 25 of the Act which had been stayed. A notice was issued to the petitioner who appeared in Court on Mar. 29, 1982 and opposed the restoration of the proceedings under S. 25 of the Act. The District Judge, however, restored the proceedings.

(2.) On April 21, 1982 the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance. Pendente lite and litigation expenses. She alleged that she had been paid maintenance in the divorce proceedings up to June 5, 1981, She, therefore, claimed litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite with effect from June 6, 1981. The District Judge vide order dated April 30, 1982 allowed Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance pendente lite with effect from 6-6-1981 and Rs. 400/- as litigation expense. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under S. 24 of the Act cannot be allowed in proceedings for permanent alimony under S. 25 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses can be ordered to be paid in terms of S. 24 of the Act in proceedings under S. 25 of the Act. 3A. Section 24 of the Act reads :