Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The respondent in this case applies for alimony pendente lite for the time previous to the decree nisi. She states in her affidavit that from August 1894 the petitioner has not given her any maintenance, and that she has spent a considerable amount for the maintenance of herself and her children who were living with her. The facts stated in her affidavit have in various respects been contradicted by the petitioner, but when the application was made, I intimated that, if I decided the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent, I would refer the questions of fact to the Registrar; and counsel on both sides acquiesced in that course.

2. Mr. Avetoom, for the petitioner, objected that I had no jurisdiction to make the order relating to alimony prior to the decree nisi, on the ground that the action had ended. N-o case has been cited to show that I have no jurisdiction. I am clearly of opinion that I have jurisdiction. The wife could have applied for alimony after service of the citation on her; but she did not do so. There is no provision precluding me from now making the order asked for.

3. In the case of Foden v. Foden I.L.R. (1894), P.C. 307, to which I referred in the course of the argument, an order granting alimony was made by Mr. Justice Jeune, on the application of the wife after the decree nisi. The case was appealed, and the very same ground now taken was taken by Mr. Inderwick, Q. C, before the Appeal Court. There was, it was said, "no jurisdiction to make an order for alimony pendente lite. The decree nisi having been made, there was no longer any lis pendens." Lord Herschell, L. C., after stating the facts, stated the result arrived at as follows:

6. I think the wife is entitled to alimony from the date of the service of the citation. As the petitioner says he has made various payments to his wife, and as he also alleges that she has a considerable sum in her hands belonging to him, I refer it to the Registrar to enquire into the facts alleged by the parties, and to report what, if any, alimony under the circumstances that may be established should, in his opinion, be given to the wife prior to the decree nisi, commencing from the date of the service of the citation. He will also consider what provision should be made as to the payment of any alimony, having regard to the facts that the petitioner is in receipt of a monthly income.

Pigot, J.

JUDGMENT Pigot, J.

1. The petitioner asks for an order for the respondent to pay the petitioner such alimony as the Court may think fit and also a sum for costs.

2. Practically there is no question as to the right to the order as regards alimony, and although as regards the amount of alimony to be given in proportion to her husband's income, Mr. Apcar contended that, under the circumstances, a less proportion than has been usually granted should be allowed, I do not think the circumstances are such as to lead to this conclusion. Having regard to the amount of income of her husband, and of his reversionary interest, Rs. 100 per month should be allowed to the petitioner for alimony.