NATHULAL Vs. MANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil miscellaneous appeal before us raises an important question under sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that question is whether a wife against whom a decree for divorce had been passed on the ground of non-compliance with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years, is entitled to permanent alimony.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are as follows - THE appellant Nathulal married respondent Mst. Manadevi at Ajmer on 21-4-50. THE marriage gave birth to a son. About six months after the marriage, the respondent went away to her parents' house. THE appellant made efforts for her return to his house but the respondent refused to live with her husband. On 12-1-53 the appellant sent a notice to the respondent requesting her to return to his house but to no avail. Ultimately, the appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Additional Munsif, Ajmer, against the respondent. In her written statement, the respondent contended that she was turned out of the house by the appellant and his parents after giving a severe beating. According to her, she was deserted by the appellant, and, therefore the appellant was not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. THE learned Munsif decreed the suit on 29-5-58 holding that the respondent had failed to prove that she was subjected to any bodily or mental cruelty at the hands of the appellant. It was further held that though the appellant, was desirous that the respondent should live with him but the respondent did not live with him. THE suit for restitution of conjugal rights was therefore decreed against the respondent. THE appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. After the expiry of two years, the appellant moved an application to the Court of District Judge, Ajmer under sec. 13 of the Act alleging that the respondent had failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years, and, therefore, he was entitled to a decree for divorce against the respondent. This application was again contested by the respondent on the ground that she was always prepared to cohabit and live with the appellant but the latter did not allow her to do so. She also alleged that she was turned out by the appellant forcibly out of the house because she objected to the petitioner to lead immoral life. THE learned District Judge, Ajmer, on 9-12-61 allowed the application holding that the respondent had failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than two years after the passing of the decree and as such the appellant was entitled to a decree for divorce. On 6-2-62 the respondent, moved the present application under sec. 25 of the Act claiming permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from the date of the decree of divorce to the rest of her life. She alleged that she had not remarried and was leading a chaste and that she had no independent means of income to maintain and support herself. She further pleaded that the appellant earns Rs. 130/- per month and he is in a position to pay Rs. 30/- per month for her maintenance. THE application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent has been adament not to live with him from the very beginning, so much so that even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, she did not obey it with the result that he was compelled to move an application for divorce which was allowed by the District Judge. THE learned District Judge who tried the application came to the conclusion that there was satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the respondent did not possess any property and had no means of income to support herself. It was further held that neither the respondent had re-married nor she was leading an unchaste life. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge thought it proper to allow the application and to grant the respondent a sum of Rs. 15/- per month in the nature of starving maintenance. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this appeal.