Bandana Rout @ Nayak And Another vs Jogendra Rout

Mr. Bahali, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants (wife and minor son). He submits, his client is aggrieved by impugned order dated 20th July, 2017 dissolving the marriage. His client came to learn respondent-husband thereafter remarried. Hence, under compulsion his client has confined her grievance to omission to grant permanent alimony. On query from Court he submits, his client has not altered her status.

Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-husband. On query from Court regarding discussion in impugned order for omitting to direct grant of permanent alimony, he draws attention to paragraph-2 therein.

Perused impugned order. Paragraph-2 is recital of case made out by respondent-husband. There is complete omission with reference to consideration for direction being issued on permanent alimony or why it was not granted at all.

Mr.  Bahali  relies  on  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga reported in (2005) 2 SCC 33, paragraphs-14, 21 and 23. We reproduce below paragraph-21 (Manupatra print).

“21. Section 25 is an enabling provision. It empowers the Court in a matrimonial case to consider facts, and circumstances of the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance.”

Provision in section 25 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 declared to be an enabling provision, also allows for a party in a matrimonial proceeding to at any time subsequent to passing of decree, apply for maintenance and support at, inter alia, such gross sum has may seem to the Court to be just. It appears, appellant-wife presented herself for conciliation on one occasion and thereafter did not participate in the civil proceeding. That may have been reason for omission of the trial Court to consider on the question of permanent alimony.

In aforesaid circumstances, we direct appellant-wife to apply to the Court below for permanent alimony in terms of section 25. The application be made within two weeks from date and should be expeditiously dealt with by the Court below, preferably by eight weeks thereafter. On our aforesaid direction being necessitated on omission in impugned order and in view of the enabling provision, we do not interfere with impugned order in appeal. Submission of Mr. Swain stands recorded that during pendency of the proceeding interim maintenance was paid to appellant-wife.

The appeal is disposed of.

………………………………