Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, argued that respondent-wife did not file any application claiming permanent alimony and maintenance, which is a condition precedent as provided under Section 25 of the Act. It is further argued that the trial Court could exercise its power of granting alimony only on filing of such an application by the wife. A decision to grant permanent alimony would require to consider the earnings of the appellant-husband, the conduct of the parties and other facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court could not grant permanent alimony and maintenance unless both the parties were given opportunity to place material before Court supporting their claim. In support, the learned counsel referred to titled as D. Balakrishnan v. Pavalamant and Ors., and 1984 H.L.R. 489 titled as Meerabai v. Laxminarayan Mishra. The basic argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that ho conditional decree could be passed by the trial Court. The grant of maintenance should have been ordered independently while passing the decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. The learned counsel further argued that trial court could not grant Rs. 2,00,000/- each for the marriage of three daughters under the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. The maintenance could only be granted to the spouse concerned and not to the children. The learned counsel argued that decree of divorce is an executable decree in view of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. It is argued that where the decree or order relating to alimony or maintenance or expenses for the litigation is passed, it has to be treated as a money decree and has to be executed as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Any enforcement of the decree otherwise than by execution, is not maintainable.

10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court could not pass a conditional decree and such decree is only executable under the provisions of Section 28-A the Act, cannot be accepted, as no bar has been provided under the Act in making such an arrangement. Also there is no bar in the Act for enforcement of such an order as has been passed in the present case. In the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court did not accept the argument that maintenance pendente lite could be granted only on filing of an application, on the ground that an opportunity has to be given to the other side to put forth his/her defence. However, in the present case, in the application filed under Section 24 of the Act as well as in the written statement, the wife had categorically stated that she along with daughters had no place of residence and therefore, they looked towards the husband for their care. As discussed above, non filing of application would amount to only adhering to technicalities rather than serving the ends of justice.