JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. Sh. Tek Chand Behal had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage which was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, Smt. Pushpa Behal, who is wife of Tek Chand Behal filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of permanent alimony which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide his judgment dated 16.2.1987.
2. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment, Pushpa Behal has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the petition.
3. The challenge to the judgment is that the learned trial Court erred in law in holding that the dismissal of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act did not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel contends that the provisions of Section 25 of the Act have to be construed liberally and dismissal of petition under the provisions of Sections 9 to 13 of the Act would amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act and as such the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be quashed.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
5. In order to resolve the controversy raised, provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are required to be reproduced which reads:-
“25. permanent alimony and maintenance :
(1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application . made to if for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant 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 as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant (the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case) it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.”
6. In Shantaram Dinkar Karnik v. Malti Shantaram Karnik, AIR 1964 Bombay (51) 83, it was noted that technically speaking dismissal of a suit or a petition may be called a decree but not for the purpose of Section 25 conferring jurisdiction on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out that any decree under Section 9 or under Section 13 of the Act was passed against the wife. In case decree under section or 13 of the Act had been passed, which has not been nullified, only in that eventuality the wife could be held to be entitled to permanent alimony. But in the case in hand, the position is entirely different as no decree was passed against the appellant.
8. The Supreme Court in Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, JT 1993(4) S.C. 22, has taken the view that existence of decrees referred to in Sections 9 to 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Act. It was held that by rejecting a claim, the matrimonial court does make an appealable decree in terms of Section 28, but it neither affects nor disrupts the marriage. It certainly does not pass a decree in terms of Section 25 for its decision has not moved or done anything towards, or led through, to disturb the marriage, or to confer or take away any legal character or status.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the appellant-wife had no right to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act for the reason that the petition of the husband was dismissed.
10. In case the wife wants to have maintenance from the husband, the remedy is to file application under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or she can Seek other remedy available under the law.
Dismissed.