NAVIN SINHA,J. - (1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the Family Judge, Jhalawar allowing Miscellaneous Case No.230/2012 granting permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act') notwithstanding the dismissal of the divorce application preferred by the Appellant.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that if the application for divorce preferred by the Appellant had been dismissed, the question for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act does not arise. It is only when a decree is passed under any of the provisions of Section 9 to 13 of the Act, can permanent alimony be granted. Reliance is placed on AIR 2005 Supreme Court 422 (Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga) and AIR 1973 Raj.3 (Purshotam Kewalia v. Smt. Devki). The second submission is that dismissal of a suit for divorce does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act.
(3.) Counsel for the Respondent submits that the order granting permanent alimony suffers from no infirmity. It follows AIR 1988 Rajasthan 12 (Sukhdev v. Santos) which itself relies on AIR 1991 Bombay 440 (Modilal Kaluramji v. Laxmi Modilal Jain) holding that the words "any decree" in Section 25 of the Act would include the rejection of a divorce application also. The order of the Family Judge therefore calls for no interference.;