JAGTAR SINGH Vs. JANGIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagtar Singh earlier filed a petition for divoce against his wife Smt. Jangir Kant on the ground that she had deserted him without any sufficient cause. That petition was opposed tooth and nail by the wife and she pleaded that it was the husband who had deserted her because she was uneducated and a simple lady and he did not want to keep her. However, on the preponderance of the evidence, it was found that she had deserted the husband and a decree for divorce was passed. She did not remain satisfied with the decree of divorce and challenged the same by filing an appeal in this Court hit remained unsuccessful. After the decree of divorce became final, she filed a petition under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of permanent alimony. That application was opposed by Jagtar Singh. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(2.) After evidence was led, the trial Court decided both the issues in favour of Smt. Jangir Kaur and allowed her Rs. 100/- per month as permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act from the date of filing of the application till her remarriage or death, whichever is earlier. Against the aforesaid order, Jagtar Singh has come to this Court in appeal.

(3.) Shri R.K. Battas, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has urged that there was an amendment in section 25 of the Act and besides the conduct of the parties, other circumstances of the case have also to be kept in view while deciding the question of grant of permanent alimony. It is true that the words 'other circumstances of the case' were added in the year 1976, after the words 'conduct of the parties'. However, the question would be whether on the facts of the present case, it can be held that the former wife is not entitled to permanent alimony. On facts, it is urged by the learned counsel that since divorce was granted on the ground of desertion by the wife because she did not want to serve her aliling husband, such a case would fall within 'other circumstances of the case' and, therefore, she should not have been allowed permanent alimony. He further emphasized that a definite finding was recorded in the divorce proceedings that the appellant was suffering from Asthma and his mother was suffering from paralysis and she left them under those circumstances and this finding should he considered to be sufficient for not granting her permanent alimony.