Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal Nos. 2653 54 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.91 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision Nos. 2998 and 2919 of 1990. D.V. Sehgal and N.K. Aggarwal for the Appellant. G.L	 Saghi	 P.P. Tripathi and Suchinto Chatterji for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI	 J. The point which requires determination in these two appeals	 arising from a common judgment and order dated February 15	 1991 of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh	 in Civil Revision Nos. 2918 and 2919 of 1990 is	 whether the payment of alimony is admissible 957 without the relationship between the spouses being terminated. The wife appellant was married to the husband respondent on September 19	1972 at Amritsar	 in the State of Punjab. Three children were born from the wed lock and are at present living with their father. Out of them two are males	 their respective years of birth being 1973 and 1980 and the third is a female born in the year 1976. On 28 8 1985 a petition under section 13 B of (hereafter referred to as the Act ') seeking divorce by mutual consent was received by the court of the Additional District Judge	 Amritsar purported to have been failed jointly by the two spouses. It was stated therein that the parties had been living separately for over a year due to incompatibility of temperament and their effort to settle their differences amongst themselves	 or with the aid of friends and relatives	 had been futile. On receipt the petition was kept pending	 as was the requirement of section 13 B of the Act. According to the wife she was not a consenting party to the filing of such petition at all. Her version was that the husband had duped her in obtaining her signatures on blank papers on a false pretext and in turn had employed those papers in the said petition for divorce. On coming to know of the pendency of the petition	 she immediately filed objections before the court	 obstructing the grant of petition. The respective pleas of the parties were put to issue and evidence was led. According to the wife some understanding later was reached between the parties on the basis of which she was to be put back in the matrimonial home and thus the petition was got dismissed on 19 8 1987	 on the basis of the joint statement of the parties before the Additional District Judge	 Amritsar which was to the following effect: "We agree that applications under sections 24 and 25 of may be dismissed. We also agree that since the parties have not been able to make a joint statement within a period of six months of the original petition	 the main petition under section 13B of the may be dismissed. Otherwise too	 the parties to the marriage do not want to proceed with their main application under section 13 of the and the same be also dismissed and the parties may be left to bear their own costs. On the basis of the above statement	 the court passed the following order	 the same day: "The applicant and counsel for the parties have made their statements recorded separately the main petition under section 13 and 958 also applications under sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu marriage Act are dismissed as withdrawn. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The file be consigned. " It appears that the dismissal of the petition under section 13 B led only to a temporary truce	 and not peace as hoped. Rehabilitation in the matrimonial home evaded the wife. The husband	 who in the meantime had established his business at Ghazibad in Utter Pradesh	 barely three months after the dismissal of the petition under section 13 B. approached the District Court at Ghaziabad in a regular petition for divorce under section 13 of the Act levelling	 amongst others	 allegations of adultery against the wife. To meet the offensive the wife refuted the charge of adultery and prayed to the Ghaziabad Court grant of maintenance pendente lite	 which the Court fixed at Rs. 1000 per month. It appears since the husband had obstacled payment of maintenance pendente lite	 divorce proceedings stand stayed under orders of the High Court of Allahabad	 until the order of grant of maintenance pendente lite was obeyed. The matter thus stands stagnated there. The wife then went in an offensive. She moved the court of Additional District Judge	 Amritsar on 22 3 1990	 under section 15 of the for the grant of permanent alimony on the plea that she was facing starvation	 when her husband was a multi millionaire	 having cars	 telephone facilities and other amenities of life. Simultaneously she moved the court under section 24 of the for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. After a grim contest between the parties the Additional District Judge	 Amritsar on September 20	 1990 allowed the petition under section 24 of the Act granting her a sum of Rs. 6000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 2000 per month as maintenance pendente lite	 from the date of application. The husband challenged the said order of grant in revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The wife too approached the High Court in revision seeking enhancement of sums under both counts. Both the revision petitions being referred to a larger bench were disposed of by the common judgment under appeal sustaining the objection of the husband that an application under section 25 of the Act was	 in the facts and circumstances	 not maintainable; the Matrimonial Court at Amritsar	 in the earlier litigation	 having not passed any decree of the variables known as Restitution of Conjugal Rights	 Judicial Separation	 Nullity of Marriage	 or Divorce	 so as to quash proceedings under section 25 and sequally quashing the order under section 24 of the Act granting litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. Hence these appeals. 959 Section 25 of the Act	 as it now stands	 after amendment by Act 68 of 1976 is reproduced hereunder: "25 PERMANENT ALIMONY AND MAINTENANCE (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may	 at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto	 on application made to it for purpose by either the wife o r the husband	 as the case may be	 order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such cross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as	 having regard to the respondent 's own income and other property	 if any	 the income and other property of the applicant	 [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case]	 it may seem to the court to be just	 and any such payment may be secured	 if necessary	 by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. (2)If the court is satisfied that there is	 a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub section (1)	 it may at the instance of either party	 very	 modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. (3)If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or	 if such party is the wife	 that she has not remained chaste	 or	 if such party is the husband	 that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock	 [it may at the instance of the other party very	 modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just]. " It is relevant to reproduce Section 28 as well: "28 APPEAL FROM DECREES AND ORDERS (1) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall	 subject to the provisions of sub section (3) be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction	 and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act	 under 960 section 25 or Section 26 shall	 subject to the provisions of sub section (3)	 be appealable if they are not interim orders and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order." Right from its inception	 at the unamended stage	 the words "at the time of passing any decree or any time subsequent thereto" posed difficulty. The majority of the High Courts in the country took the view that those words indicated that an order for permanent alimony or maintenance in favour of the wife or the husband could only be made when a decree is passed granting any substantive relief and not where the main petition itself is dismissed or withdrawn. It was also gathered that if no request for alimony was made at the time of passing the decree the same relief could be sought subsequently on an application. The relief of permanent alimony was deduced to be ancilliary or incidental to the substantive relief	 and it was given to the party to whom such relief was due. The expression "any decree" was viewed to have been used having regard to the various kinds of decrees such as decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights	 Judicial Separation	 Nullity of Marriage	 and Divorce	 which could be passed either on contest or consent. Some of the High Courts also had occasion to distinguish between the expression "passing any decree" referred to in section 25 (1) with "decrees made" referred to in section 28 providing for appeals from decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under the Act	 and such decrees being appealable	 as decrees of the Court made in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. It led to the determination of the question whether the denial of relief under the Act	 when making a decree in the sense appealable under section 28	 could be it a decree passed within the meaning of Section 25 entitling the respective spouses to claim permanent alimony thereunder. On this question too there has been rife a difference of opinion. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Kadia Harilal Purshottam vs Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas AIR [1961] Gujarat 202; ruled that the words "at the time of passing any decree or any time subsequent thereto" occurring in section 25 meant passing of any decrees of the kind referred to in the earlier provisions of the Act and not at the time of dismissing the petition for any relief provided in those 961 sections	 or any time subsequent thereto. It was viewed that the expression "any decree" did not include an order of dismissal and that the passing of an order of dismissal of the petition could not be regarded as the passing of decree within the meaning of section 25. On that view a petition for permanent alimony preferred by the wife was dismissed when the petition of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights had been dismissed. In Shantaram Gopalshet Narkar vs Hirabai	 AIR [1962] Bombay 27 Vol. 49	 a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court took the view that in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court to proceed under section 25(1) there must be a decree as contemplated under the and one of the decrees can. be under section 10(1) (B). And when the petition was allowed to be withdrawn	 there was no decree passed in favour of the husband	 and if there was no decree	 the court had no jurisdiction to pass any order granting permanent alimony to the wife under section 25(1). In Minarani Majumdar vs Dasarath Majumdar AIR [1963] Calcutta 428 Vol. 50	 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court ruled that an order dismissing a petition by the husband for divorce under section 13 is not a decree within the meaning of section 25 and as such when no substantive relief is granted under sections 9 to 14	 there is no passing of a decree as contemplated by section 25 and hence no jurisdiction to make an order for maintenance under the said section. Harilal 's case (supra) of the Gujarat High Court was noticed and relied upon. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Shantaram Dinkar Karnik vs Malti Shantaram Karnik	 AIR [1964] Bombay 83 vol. 51 relying on the earlier decision of that court in Shantaram Gopalshet 's case (supra) and kadia Hiralal 's case (supra) reaffirmed the view that the expression "passing of any decree" only referred to passing of any decrees provided for in section 9 to 13 of the Act	 even though technically speaking dismissal of a suit or a petition may be called a decree but not for the purpose of section 25 confering jurisdiction on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Akasam Chinna Babu vs Akasam Parbati & Another AIR [1967] Orissa 163 Vol. 54 denied the relief of permanent alimony when the petition for divorce of the husband had been dismissed. The views of the Bombay High Court and the	 Gujarat High Court above referred to were taken in aid to get to that view. A three Judge full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Durga 962 as vs Smt. Tara Rani	AIR (1971) Punjab and Haryana 141 Vol. 58	 in a different context	 while determining the question whether a party to a decree or divorce could apply for maintenance under sub section (1) of section 25 of the Act after which decree has been granted	 ruled that the proceedings for grant of permanent alimony were incidental to the main proceeding and as such an application for alimony could be made even after the grant of the decree for divorce. A learned Single Judge of that Court	 however	 in Gurcharan Kaur vs Ram chand AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 206 Vol. 66 even while relying	 on the full bench decision afore referred went on to deny permanent alimony to the wife hose claim for decree of Nullity of Marriage stood dismissed and on that basis the petition for alimony was held not maintainable. In Darshan Singh vs Mst. Daso AIR Vol. 67 a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made a distinction between the expression "passing any decree" occurring in section 25 and the expression decree made" under section 28. He viewed that the former expression meant granting any relief of the nature stated in sections 9 to 13 while the later meant granting or refusing the relief. In other words	 it meant that passing of any decree as to mean granting any relief	 and the making of any decree was to mean granting or refusing any relief. A Division Bench of the Delhi High court too in Smt. Sushma vs Shri Satish Chander AIR 1984 Delhi 1 Vol. 71 taking stock of the above referred to views of the Rajasthan	 Orissa. Bombay	 Calcutta and Gujarat High Courts affirmedly took the view that the passing of the decree in section 25 meant the passing of a decree of divorce	 Nullity	 Restitution of Conjugal Rights or Judicial Separation and not the passing of a decree dismissing the petition. It was further held that if the petition fails then no decree is passed	 i.e.	 the decree is denied to the applicant and therefore alimony cannot be granted in a case where a decree is refused because in such a case the marriage subsists. The word "decree" in matrimonial cases was held to have been used in a special sense different from that in which it is used in the Civil Procedure Code. Following Delhi High Court 's decision in Sushma 's case (supra)	 a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Vinod Chandra Sharma vs Smt. Rajesh Pathak AIR 1988 Allahahad 150 Vol. 75 opined that when an application for divorce is dismissed	 there is no decree passed and obviously therefore alimony cannot he granted because in such a case the marriage subsists. 963 A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Ranganatham vs Shyamla AIR 1990 Madras 1 Vol. 77 too following the above decisions held that the existence of any of the decrees referred to in sections 9 to 13 is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 25 (1) of the Act and the granting of ancilliary relief for permanent alimony and maintenance	 when the main petition was dismissed	 was not permissible. A divergent view	 however	 was struck by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Swaran Lata vs Sukhvinder Kumar(1986) 1 Hindu Law Reporter 363 taking the view that when the rights of the parties stand determined conclusively with regard to matters in controversy	 irrespective as to whether relief is granted or not	 it culminates in a decree and on the basis of that decree	 the wife would be entitled to claim maintenance or permanent alimony under section 25 of the Act. Not only was on such interpretation of sections 25 and 28 the view taken but liberality of interpretation was injected to justify the view. It was expressed that when the right of the wife to maintenance was assured under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 and section 18 of the and when that right of the wife was not being disputed	 the court	 in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings could give effect to that right	 wherever possible	 in a proceeding under section 25 of the Act itself. There the objection of the husband to the jurisdiction was termed as technical and the maintainability of claim under section 25 was upheld. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Sadanand Sahadeo Rawool vs Sulochana Sadanand Rawool	 AIR 1989 Bombay 220 Vol. 76 also took a similar view and based his decision on "necessity of the times" expressing that technicalities should not be allowed to away any court. In the situation	 the dismissal of petition for divorce was held to be no bar to grant maintenance under section 25 to the successful spouse. Then in Surendra Singh Chaudan vs Mamta Chauhan II(1990) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 208 a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court taking the view that the dismissal of a petition amounts to passing of a decree for the purposes of Section 25 of the Act held that claim for permanent alimony was maintainable. The learned Judge ruled that there appeared to be no justification for curtailing the ambit of the words to go on to hold that a decree is not a "decree" for the purposes of section 25 of the Act	 though a "decree" for the purposes of section 28 of the Act. Here again the intention of the legislature was gathered avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. so that every dispute between the parties	 particularly connected with matters like maintenance etc. should be settled in the 964 same proceedings. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Modilal Kalaramji Jain vs Lakshmi Modilal Jain AIR 1991 Bombay 440 Vol. 78 omitting the word "passing" from the expression	 interpreted the expression "any decree" to include an order refusing to grant matrimonial relief and on that basis held adjudication of claim of permanent maintenance to be within the jurisdiction of the matrimonial court. Same is the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shilla Jagannadha Prasad alias Ram vs Smt. Shilla Lalitha Kumari [1988] 1 Hindu Law Reporter 26 and some other cases which need not be multiplied. The preamble to the suggests that it is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus. Though it speaks only of the law relating to marriage	 yet the Act itself lays down rules relating to the solemnization and requirements of a valid Hindu marriage as well as Restitution of Conjugal Rights	 Judicial Separation	 Nullity of Marriage	 Divorce	 legitimacy of children and other allied matters. Where the statute expressly codifies the law	 the court as a general rule	 is not at liberty to go outside the law so created	 just on the basis that before its enactment another law prevailed. Now the other law in the context which prevailed prior to that was the unmodified Hindu law on the subject. Prior to the year 1955 or 1956 maintenance could be claimed by a Hindu wife through court intervention and with the aid of the case law developed. Now with effect from December 21	 1956	 the is in force and that too in a codified form. Its preamble too suggests that it is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. Section 18 (1) of the entitles a Hindu wife to claim maintenance from her husband during her life time. Sub section (2) of section 18 grants her the right to live separately	 without forfeiting her claim to maintenance	 if he is guilty of any of the misbehaviours enumerated therein or on account of his being in one of objectionable conditions as mentioned therein. So while sustaining her marriage and preserving her marital status	 the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. On the other hand	 under the 	 in contrast	 her claim for maintenance pendente lite is durated on the pendency of a litigation of the kind envisaged under sections 9 to 14 of the 	 and her claim to permanent maintenance or alimony is based on the supposition that either her marital status has been strained or affected by passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation in favour or against her	 or her marriage stands dissolved by a decree of nullity or divorce	 965 with or without her consent. Thus when her marital status is to be affected or disrupted the court does so by passing a decree for or against her. On or at the time of the happening of that event	 the court being siezen of the matter	 invokes its ancilliary or incidental power to grant permanent alimony. Not only that	 the court retains the jurisdiction at subsequent stages to fulfil this incidental or ancilliary obligation when moved by an application on that behalf by a party entitled to relief. The court further retains the power to chance or alter the order in view of the changed circumstances. Thus the whole exercise is within the gammit of a diseased of a broken marriage. And in order to avoid conflict of perceptions the legislature while codifying the Hindu 'Marriage Act preserved the right of permanent maintenance in favour of the husband or the wife	 as the case may be	 dependent on the court passing a decree of the kind as envisaged under sections 9 to 14 of the Act. In other words without the marital status being affected or disrupted by the matrimonial court under the the claim of permanent alimony was not to be valid as ancilliary or incidental to such affectation or disruption. The wife 's claim to maintenance necessarily has then to be agitated under the which is a legislative measure later in point of time than the 	 though part of the same socio legal scheme revolutionizing the law applicable to Hindus. Section 41 of the Evidence Act inter alia provides that a final judgment	 order or decree of a competent court in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction	 which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character	 or which declares any person to be entitled to such character	 is relevant. And that such judgment	 order or decree is conclusive proof as to the conferral	 accrual	or taking away of such. legal character from a point of time as declared by the court. Such judgments are known as judgments in rem	 binding the whole world. But the judgment of that kind must have done something positive	 onwards. This provision is indicative of the quality of matrimonial jurisdiction. We have thus	 in this light	 no hesitation in coming to the view that when by court intervention under the 	 affection or disruption to the marital status has come by	 at that juncture	 while passing the decree	 it undoubtedly has the power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance	 if that power is invoked at that time. It also retains the power subsequently to be invoked on application by a party entitled to relief. And such order	 in all events	 remains within the jurisdiction of that court	 to be altered or modified as future situations may warrant. In contrast	 without affectation or disruption of the marital status	 a Hindu wife sustaining` that status can live in separation from her husband	 and 966 whether she is living in that state or not	 her claim to maintenance stands preserved in codification under section 18 (1) of the . The court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simplicitor obtainable under one Act in proceedings under the other. As is evident	 both the statutes are codified as such and are clear on their subjects and by liberality of interpretation inter changeability cannot be permitted so as to destroy the distinction on the subject of maintenance. Relief to the wife may also be due under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereunder an order of maintenance can be granted after contest	 and an order of interim maintenance can be made at the outset	 without much contest. This provision however has two peculiar features: (i) the provision applies to all and not only to Hindus; and (ii) maintenance allowance cannot exceed a sum of Rs. 500 per mensem. But this is a measure in the alternative to provide destitute wives. This court has ruled that if the language used in a statute can be construed widely so as to salvage the remedial intendment	 the court must adopt it. Of course	 if the language of a statute does not admit of the construction sought	 wishful thinking is no substitute	 and then	 not the court but the legislature is to blame for enacting a damp squib statute. These are the observations of V.K. Krishna Iyer	 J. in Carew and Company vs Union of India ; at pages 803 804. Towards interpreting statutes	 the court must endeavour to see its legislative intendment. Where the language is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning	 the court must sympathetically and imaginatively discover the true purpose and object of the Provision by filling gaps	 clearing doubts	 and mitigating hardships	 harshness or unfair consequences. See Motor Owners ' Insurance Company	 Limited vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi and others [1981] 4 SCC 660 paras 14. 15 and 16. These principles were pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellant contending that if the claim of the wife for maintenance was otherwise justified on fact and law	 the procedures and the for a should not stand in her way and let her cash on her claim over ruling all objections. It was asserted that the Amritsar court had jurisdiction to grant relief	 as asked for	 because once upon a time it was seisin of the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent	 though such petition was withdrawn. On the afore analysis and distinction drawn between the fora and perceptives	 967 it is difficult to come to the view that a claim which is ancilliary or incidental in a matrimonial court under the could be tried as an original claim in that court; a claim which may for the moment be assumed as valid	 otherwise agitable in the civil court under the . As said before	 these two enactments keeping apart	 the remaining two	 i.e.	 and Hindu Minority and and Guardianship Act	 1956 are a package of enactments	 being part of one socio legal scheme applicable to Hindus. When distinctive claims are covered distinctly under two different statutes and agitable in the courts conceived of thereunder	 it is difficult to sustain the plea that when a claim is otherwise valid	 choosing of one forum or the other should be of no consequence. These are not mere procedural technicalities or irregularities	 as termed by one line of reasoning by some of the High Courts. These are matters which go to the root of the jurisdiction. The matrimonial court	 a court of special jurisdiction	 is not meant to pronounce upon a claim of maintenance without having to go into the exercise of passing a decree	 which implies that unless it goes onwards	 moves or leads through	 to affect or disrupt the marital status between the parties. By rejecting a claim	 the matrimonial court does make an appealable degree in terms of section 28	 but neither affects nor disrupts the marriage. It certainly does not pass a decree in terms of section 25 for its decision has not moved or done anything towards	 or led through	 to disturb the marriage	 or to confer or take away any legal character or status. Like a surgeon	 the matrimonial court	 if operating	 assumes the obligation of the post operatives	 and when not	 leaves the patient to the physician. On the afore analysis we have been led to the conclusion that the step of the wife to move the court of Additional District Judge	 Amritsar for (	rant of maintenance under section 25 of the was ill advised. The judgment of the High Court under appeal could be no other than the one that it was in the present state of law and the facts and circumstances. It is still open to the wife to stake her claim to maintenance in other fora. The judgments of the High Courts earlier quoted	 and others which have been left out	 which are not in line with our view are over ruled. The earlier and predominant view was the correct one and the later an aberration; something unfortunate from the precedential point of view. The appeals thus inevitably have to and are hereby dismissed	 but without any order as to costs. Before we part with this judgment	 we need to mention that while this judgment was reserved	 an Interlocutory Application was received by the Registry	 which unnumbered Interlocutory Application was duly transmitted to us. It is for directing the appellant to pay arrears of maintenance. While granting leave 968 this Court on 8th July	 1991 had ordered that during the pendency of the appeal	 but without prejudice to the respective stands of the spouses	 the husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000 per mensem by way of maintenance to the wife month to month by bank draft. In the Interlocutory Application there is an allegation that this Court 's orders have not been complied with. Let notice on the application separately be issued to the respondent returnable within six weeks to show cause why payment of arrears of maintenance be not secured to the wife forthwith. U.R. Appeal dismissed.

The parties were married in 1972 in Punjab. In 1985	 a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed in court at Amritsar The appellant wife alleged that she was not a consenting party	 and the petition was dismissed in 1987 following an agreement on the basis of which she would be put back in the matrimonial home. However	 barely three months later	 the respondent husband filed a regular petition for divorce at Ghaziabad inter alia alleging adultery against his wife. The appellant wife refuted the charge. The Court granted her maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 1	000 p.m. The husband not paving this amount	 the divorce proceedings stand stayed. On 22nd March	 1990 the appellant moved the District judge	 Amritsar and was granted Rs. 6	000as litigation expenses and Rs. 2	000as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application under section 24. She also claimed permanent alimony and maintenance under section 25 of the . On appeal	 the High Court held that an application under section 25 was not 955 maintainable as the matrimonial court at amritsar had not passed any decree for restitution of conjugal rights	 judicial separation	 nullity or divorce. Sequelly it quashed the order under section 24 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court HELD:The right of permanent maintenance in favour of the husband or the wife is dependent (in the Court passing a degree of the kind envisaged under Ss. 9to 14 of the Act. In (other words	 without the marital status being affected or disrupted by the matrimonial court under the the claim (of permanent alimony was not to be valid as ancilliary or incidental to such affectation or disruption. Kadia Martial Purshotham vs Kadia Lilavati Gokaldas AIR 1961 Guj 202; Shantaram Gopalshet Narkar vs Hirabai	 AIR 1962 Bom 27 Minarani Majumdar vs Dasarath Majumdar AIR 1963 Cal 428; Shantaram Dinkar Karnik vs Malti Shantaram Karnik AIR 1964 Bom 83; Akasam Chinna Babu vs Akasam Parbati	 AIR 1967 Ori 163; Gurcharan Kaur vs Ram Chand	 AIR 1979 P & H 206; Darshan Singh vs Mst. 	 AIR 1980 Raj 102; Smt. Sushama vs Satish Chander	 AIR 1984 Del 1; Vinod Chandra Sharma vs Smt. Rajesh Pathak	 AIR 1988 All 150 and Ranganatham vs Shyamala AIR 1990 Mad 1	 affirmed. Swaran Lata vs Sukhvinder Kumar (1986) 1 Hindu LR 363; Sadanand Sahadeo Rawool vs Sulochana Sadanand Rawool	 AIR 1989 Bom 220; Surendra Singh Chauhan vs Mamta Chauhan	 11 1990 Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 208; Modilal kalaramji Jain vs Lakshmi Modilal Jain AlR ; and Shilla Jagannadha Prasad vs Smt. Shilla Lalitha Kumari 1988 Hindu LR 26	 overruled. Durga Das vs Smt. Tara Rani	 AIR & H 141	 referred to. 2.A Court intervening under the undoubtedly has the power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance	 if that power is invoked at the juncture when the marital status is affected or disrupted. It also retains the power subsequently to be invoked on application by a party entitled to relief. A nd such order	 in all events	 remains within the jurisdiction of that court	 to be altered or modified as future situations may warrant. 3.While sustaining her marriage and preserving her marital status	 a Hindu wife 's claim to maintenance is codified is S.18 of the Hindu Adoptions 956 and Maintenance Act	 1956 and must necessarily be agitated thereunder. 4.The court is not at liberty to grant relief of maintenance simplicitor obtainable under one Act in proceedings under the other. As is evident	 both the statutes are codified as such and are clear on their subjects and by liberality of interpretation inter changeability cannot be permitted so as to destroy the distinction on the subject of maintenance. Carew	 & Co. vs Union of India ; and Motor Owners ' Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jadavjit Keshavji Modi [1981] 4 SCC 660	 referred to. 5.When distinctive claims are covered distinctly under two different statutes	 choosing of one forum or the other	 are not mere procedural technicalities or irregularities. These are matters which go to the root of the jurisdiction. The matrimonial court	 a court of special jurisdiction. is not meant to pronounce upon a claim of maintenance without having to go into the exercise of passing a decree which implies that unless it goes onwards	 Moves or leads through	 to affect or disrupt the marital status between the parties. By rejecting a claim	 the matrimonial court does make an appealable decree. in terms of section 28	 but neither affects nor disrupts the marriage. It certainly does not pass a decree in terms of section 25 for its decision has not moved or done anything towards	 or led through	 to disturb the marriage	 or to confer or to take away any legal character or status.