Landmark Judgment on Permanent Alimony Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Oct 07, 2019, at ,04:48 PM Title of the Case – No Permanent Alimony during Relationship between Spouses Name of the case – Smt. Chand Dhawan vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan., 1993 SCR (3) 954 Date of Judgment – 11th June 1993 Judges: Justice M.M. Punchhi Subject and sections involved – Permanent Alimony u/s 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Issue: Whether the payment of alimony is admissible without the relationship between the spouses being terminated? Click Here to Learn Advance Legal Drafting by Advocates of Supreme Court Fact of the Case: The wife-appellant was married to the husband-respondent on September 19, 1972, at Amritsar, in the State of Punjab. Three children were born from the wedlock and are at present living with their father. Out of the two are males, their respective years of birth being 1973 and 1980 and the third is a female born in the year 1976. On 28-8- 1985 a petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the Act') seeking divorce by mutual consent was received by the court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar purported to have been filed jointly by the two spouses. It was stated therein that the parties had been living separately for over a year due to incompatibility of temperament and their effort to settle their differences amongst themselves, or with the aid of friends and relatives, had been futile. On receipt, the petition was kept pending, as was the requirement of section 13-B of the Act. According to the wife, she was not a consenting party to the filing of such petition at all. Her version was that the husband had duped her in obtaining her signatures on blank papers on a false pretext and in turn, had employed those papers in the said petition for divorce. The appellant-wife refuted the charge. The court granted her maintenance pendente lite at Rs 1,000 p.m. The husband not paving this amount, the divorce proceedings stand stayed. On 22nd March 1990, the appellant moved the District Judge, Amritsar and was granted Rs 6,000 litigation expenses and Rs 2,000 as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application u/s 24. She also claimed permanent alimony and maintenance u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Ratio of the case - The Supreme Court held that when distinctive claims are covered distinctly under two different statutes and agitable in the courts conceived of thereunder, it is difficult to sustain the plea that when a claim is otherwise valid, choosing of one forum or the other should be of no consequence. These are not mere procedural technicalities or irregularities, as termed by one line of reasoning by some of the High Courts. These are matters which go to the root of the jurisdiction. The matrimonial court, a court of special jurisdiction, is not meant to pronounce upon a claim of maintenance without having to go into the exercise of passing a decree, which implies that unless it goes onwards, moves or leads through, to affect or disrupt the marital status between the parties. By rejecting a claim, the matrimonial court does make an appealable degree in terms of section 28, but neither affects nor disrupts the marriage. It certainly does not pass a decree in terms of section 25 for its decision has not moved or done anything towards, or led through, to disturb the marriage, or to confer or take away any legal character or status. Like a surgeon, the matrimonial court, if operating, assumes the obligation of the post operatives, and when not, leaves the patient to the physician. Thus, the court held that the step of the wife to move the court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar for grant of maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ill-advised. Click Here to Get Into Legal World Magazine