Kadia Harilal Purshottam vs Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas on 1 February, 1961
Similarly, in Kadia Harilal Purshottam v, Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas. AIR 1961 Guj 202. it was held that the expression 'while the applicant remains unmarried' was not intended to limit the scope of Section 25 and that the intention of the legislature was that order for permanent alimony could be passed on or after the passing of any of the reliefs referred to in the earlier sections of the Act. These words were held not to restrict the application of Section 25 to only those cases where a party was in a position to contract a second marriage or where the marriage bond stood dissolved or severed. This condition was supposed to govern the conduct of the parties in future and the maintenance order could be taken advantage of by the applicant only as long as he had remained immarried meaning thereby that in spite of his being in a position to do so. the applicant had not contracted another marriage.