There is numberdispute that the executrix paid the maintenance in December 1975 for a period after the death of Prafulla Kumar Mitra.
The executing companyrt overruled the objection whereupon the appellant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
1/77 claiming recovery of arrears of Rs.
From the Judgment and order the 25th April 1980 of the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No.
But since numberpayment was made thereafter, respondent levied execution in Matrimonial Case No.
A Division Bench agreed with the executing Court but while dismissing the revision application, granted certificate of appeal to this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Sinha, Attorney General, V. Subba Rao and R.S. Poddar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate from the Calcutta High Court raises the question whether a decree for permanent alimony passed under section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act , is wiped out with the death of the husband judgment debtor.
He died on April, 3, 1965, and the appellant who was the executrix under the Will got it duly probated.
Respondent Dorothea and one Prafulla Kumar Mitra were married under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, in January 1952.
Prafulla Kumar Mitra executed a Will on March 31, 1965, but made numberprovision therein for satisfaction of the maintence decree.
Respondent asked for divorce in 1961 and obtained a decree on May 2, 1962, to the effect The petitioners Dorothea Mitras marriage with the respondent Prafulla Kumar Mitra be dissolved by a decree of divorce.
B. Mehrotra for the Substituted Respondent.
300 p.m. as maintenance from the respondent to be paid by the 1st week of each month following for which it is due until she re marries Respondent levied execution of the decree and the same was companypromised and payment of the arrears was undertaken to be made in instalments.
Shanker Ghose, Sobhan Tagore and P.K. Mukherjee for the Appellant.
19,500.
The petitioner do get Rs.
Appellant objected to the claim under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by pleading that the order of alimony number being charged, the death of Parfulla Kumar Mitra has extinguished the claim of the purported decree holder.
1997 of 1980.
1529 of 1979.
