:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2009 Mrs. Vrushali Shantanu Badhe ..Appellant Vs. Mr. Shantanu Dattatray Badhe ..Respondent Ms. Seema Sarnaik i/by Mr. Onkar Warange for appellant. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. Date : April 27, 2009. Date : April 27, 2009. Date : April 27, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have heard Ms. Sarnaik the learned counsel for the appellant-wife. 2. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arises from the Judgment and Order dated 12/1/2009 by which a Petition filed by the husband and registered as Petition No.A-294 of 2007 came to be dismissed. The said petition was filed seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu :2: Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. on the ground of cruelty. The appellant - wife has, thus, succeeded before the Family Court in as much as the husband’s petition for divorce came to be dismissed. 3. This appeal is not maintainable for more than one reasons. Firstly, the wife did not file any cross objection. We are also informed that she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and it was granted at Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. In addition, the claim for the benefit of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. permanent alimony cannot be considered unless the marital ties are brought to an end and this position in law is well settled in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Chand Dhawan vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan [(1993) 3 SCC 406] and B.P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and anr. [(2005) 3 SCC 313]. 5. Ms. Sarnaik the learned counsel for the :3: appellant placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Rameschandra Daga [(2005) 2 SCC 33]. We have noted that in the case of Daga vs. Daga (Supra) there was a declaration made by the Family Court that the second marriage was null and void and thus the marital tie claimed to have been legally finalised came to be broken and, therefore, the Supreme Court held that the claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be maintainable. This view is in keeping with the law laid down in the earlier judgments in Smt. Chand Dhawan (Supra) and B.P. Achala Anand (Supra). 6. Even otherwise, the remedy of the appellant for either to continue the amount of interim maintenance already granted in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or to file a fresh application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is intact and thus the appellant-wife has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Family Court. :4: 7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the wife to approach the Family Court by way of appropriate proceedings for maintenance. 8. Civil Application No. 124 of 2009 does not survive and same shall stand disposed as such. (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)