IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13607 of 2011 Mukund Chandra Verma Versus Rajani Verma @ Putul ---------------------------------- 2 23.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the husband petitioner against the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in O.S. Case No. 97 of 2009, whereby the learned court below directed the parties to adduce the evidence with regard to permanent alimony. It appears that the decree for divorce has been granted by the court on the application filed by the petitioner. In written statement the wife respondent claimed maintenance. Since the decree has been passed with consent of the wife there is no evidence before the court regarding the status of the parties, the income of the parties and other facts. Therefore, in view of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act the learned court below directed the parties to adduce evidence. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after divorce decree the learned court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayer by the wife for maintenance. I do no agree with the learned counsel as Section 25 says that the court can grant 2 alimony i.e. maintenance at the time of passing decree or at any time subsequent thereto. In the present case since there was no material before the court at the time of decree the court below could not pass the order of permanent alimony and, therefore, directed the parties to adduce evidence. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)