Order Of Maintenance U/s. 25 Of Hindu Marriage Act Cannot Be Passed Without Such Relief Being Asked: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be passed without such relief being asked by the person in whose favour such order is being passed.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed, “It is also material that finding of the trial court has been maintained in the appeal, as such, there was no occasion to grant maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent Preetam Kumari coupled with the fact that there was no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in civil appeal by respondent-wife. … In view of the finding of fact recorded by the trial court declaring the marriage as void and ineffective, the grant of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent Preetam Kumari is manifestly erroneous and illegal.”
The Bench said that the grant of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent when marriage has been declared null and void by the trial court, cannot be maintained in the eyes of the law.
Advocates Manoj Kumar Sharma and Krishna Singh appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocates Manoj Kumar Gupta and Mahesh Narain Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, an instant second appeal was filed against the part of the judgment by which the permanent alimony was granted to the respondent against the appellant. The following issues arose before the Court for consideration:
1. Whether the order of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be passed without such relief being asked by the person in whose favour such order is being passed?
2. Whether the first appellate court had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to parties on the point of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
The High Court in view of the above context noted, “The perusal of the lower court record reveals that there was no application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on record, as such, exercise of power under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the lower appellate court while dismissing the civil appeals filed by respondent – wife, affirming the decree of trial court, declaring the marriage as void and ineffective is vitiated by manifest error of law.”
The Court asserted that so far as the grant of monthly maintenance by the trial court is concerned, the same has come to an end while passing the final judgment and decree by the trial court declaring the marriage as void and ineffective, and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the monthly maintenance granted by the trial court.
“The suit for declaring the marriage as null and void, has been decreed by the trial court and the decree has been affirmed in the first appeal, as such, the first appellate court has committed illegality in passing the order for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. … The substantial questions of law nos. 1 & 2 are answered in favour of appellant and against the respondent”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the second appeal and set aside part of the judgment.
Cause Title- Sarnam Singh Lekhpal Chakbandi v. Preetam Kumari and Another
