SUSHMA Vs. SATISH CHANDER
LAWS(DLH)-1983-5-23
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 24,1983

SUSHMA Appellant
VERSUS
SATISH CHANDER Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VINOD CHANDRA SHARMA VS. RAJESH PATHAK [LAWS(ALL)-1987-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
RANGANATHAM VS. SHYAMALA [LAWS(MAD)-1988-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. RAJKUMARI ALIAS JYOTI [LAWS(MPH)-2002-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA ANAND SURYAVANSHI VS. KALINDI RAMCHANDRA SURYAVANSHI [LAWS(BOM)-1990-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
MODILAL KALURAMJI JAIN VS. LAKSHMI MODILAL JAIN [LAWS(BOM)-1991-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
MODILAL KALURAMJI JAIN VS. LAKSHMI MODILAL JAIN [LAWS(BOM)-1991-3-92] [REFERRED]
D. SIVAKUMAR VS. PARIMALA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-65] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.K.Kapur, J. - (1.)This appeal has been referred to a larger Bench as per the reference order dated 21st January, 1982. The facts of the case were that the husband Shri Satish Chander, had applied for divorce against his wife Shrimati Sushma ; this was successful and on 4th October, 1979, the Additional District Judge granted the divorce. The wife filed an appeal to the High Court which succeeded and so, the divorce was set aside. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings as well as the appeal, maintenance pendente lite was granted at Rs. 225.00 per month to the wife.
(2.)After the proceedings were over in the High Court, the wife applied for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This application was rejected by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, on the ground that such permanent alimony and maintenance can only be granted in case divorce is granted and not if the marriage subsists.
(3.)When this matter came before the learned Single Judge in appeal by the wife, he was of the view that there was some ambiguity in the wording of the Act which required the matter to be decided by a larger Bench.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.