BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115, CPC but considering that an important question of law is arising for consideration in this revision, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter is to be heard by the Division Bench. Hence, the same is before us. The petitioner is divorced wife. By order dated 22. 2. 1999 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned District Judge, Pali a consent decree for divorce was passed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and a decree for permanent alimony was passed for a lump-sum of Rs. 85,000/ -. The payment of Rs. 85,000/- was to be made in two installments; one was to be paid on 15. 5. 1999 and another was to be paid on 1. 8. 1999. In case of default to pay the amount of permanent alimony, 12% per annum interest was to be paid thereon. In pursuance of this decree, first instalment of Rs. 42,500/- was duly paid. However, before the second instalment became due, wife had remarried. Coming to know of this fact, the respondent applied for modification of the order dated 22. 2. 1999 for recalling the order of permanent alimony and for stopping the payment for second instalment on account of the wife's remarriage. The said application has been allowed by the learned District Judge, Pali vide order under challenge. It is contended that one time gross amount decreed by way of permanent alimony cannot be withdrawn under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under sub- sec. (1) of which it is envisaged that at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on an application made to it for the purpose by either, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, the court may order the respondent to pay to the application for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 envisages that if the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party very, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the Court may deem just. While the petitioner contends that the decree for permanent alimony is a decree for payment of gross sum one time, therefore, the liability to pay permanent alimony accrues immediately and becomes the liability in absolute of the granter and it becomes decree of the Court.
(3.) PROVISIONS of sub-sec. (3) applies to the cases where a periodical sum is ordered to be paid regularly and the power can be exercised in respect of liability which may accrue in future. Even such periodical payment in respect of which liability has already accrued or the sum which has already been paid cannot be varied nor the amount already paid can be recovered. The order for varying, modification or recession of earlier order can only be in respect of liability that becomes due in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that sub-sec. 3 of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not make any distinction between permanent alimony and decree of periodical maintenance. The power of the Court to amend, vary, modify or cancel the order is absolute in terms. he placed reliance in support of his contention on Ammireddi Ramamoorthy (died) & Ors. vs. Ammireddi Sitharamamma & Ors. (AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 131), D. S. Sashadri vs. Jayalakshmi (1963 Madras 283) and Minarani Majumdar vs. Dasarath Majumdar (AIR 1963 Calcutta 428 ). He further states that all the three judgments relied by him, the decision passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ammireddi Ramamoorthy (supra), has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ammireddi Raja Gopala Rao & Ors. vs. Amiredi Sitharamamma & Ors. (AIR 1965 SC 1970 ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Blanche Somerset Taylor vs. Charles George Bleach (AIR 1915 Bombay 50), Havelock Charles David Goodall vs. Mrs. Beatrice Honor Agatha Goodall (AIR 1938 Bombay 121) ;