IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 257 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.269/1999 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- SOORYAKUMAR, S/O.THANDAYAMPARAMBIL RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT CHENTHRAPPINNY, PERUMBADAPPU DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------- ---------------------- SINDHU, D/O.KOSERI PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT KADAVIL LANE, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.PADMANABHAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.A. 257/2005 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2563/2005 IN M.A. 257/2005 // DISMISSED // 21.1.2009. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/-, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = MAT. APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, rendered in O.P. 269/1999, on 18.4.2005. Husband is the appellant. 2. O.P. 269/1999 was filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by the wife. Her case was that the marriage between herself and the respondent was solemnised on 8.4.1995, that her gold ornaments weighing 100 sovereigns and Rs. 2 lakhs are with the husband and his relatives, that they lived together only for a few months, that the torture of the respondent was unendurable, that the respondent is a dipsomaniac and spendthrift, that he misappropriated her gold ornaments, that he demanded a further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs from her home and on 5.7.1995 she was taken to her own home and deserted her without maintaining her. According to the wife, the husband is having business and income from scheduled properties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. MAT.A. 257/2005 :2: The divorce petition O.P. 615/1996 filed by her is still pending and she has no source of income and therefore, demanded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from 5.7.1995 with a charge over the scheduled properties. 3. The husband resisted the claim. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony testimony of P.W.1 and R.W.1. On the petitioner's side Ext.A1 was marked and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the respondent. 4. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife is beyond dispute. By the time the final order was passed, there was already a decree for divorce granted by the Family Court which was confirmed in appeal - M.F.A. 485/2001 which fact was noticed by the Family court in para 6 of the impugned order. Thus, the matrimonial tie between the parties has broken and their relationship no longer exists. The divorce decree passed was confirmed by this Court against which S.L.P. 9707/2002 was preferred before the Apex Court which was also dismissed. Thus there is a finality to the divorce decree. However, the court below, by the order impugned in this appeal, ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-. A legal contention is raised by the appellant that after the divorce decree there MAT.A. 257/2005 :3: cannot be any order for payment of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 5. There is force in this contention. As per Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the said Act shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time and she will be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance on the circumstances mentioned under Section 18(2) of the Act. Therefore, maintenance under Section 18 of the Act can be awarded during the subsistence of the relationship between the parties. Now that there is a divorce decree passed and confirmed in appeal and has become final, the relationship as husband and wife no longer subsists. Therefore, the order passed by the Family court shall be operative till the divorce decree became final ie. the date on which the statutory appeal was dismissed by this Court (7.3.2002) and thereafter, the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court on 8.7.2002. Since the Special Leave petition was dismissed at the admission stage, even without admitting the same, we take 7.3.2002 as the date on which the decree become final. MAT.A. 257/2005 :4: 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed partly and we uphold the order of maintenance passed in in this case which will be operative till, 7.3.2002. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. KNC/-