Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vaidialingam J., in S. A. No. 810 of 1960 Krishnan v. Kousalliya 1962 KLT. 425 in pursuance of the declaration granted under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The appellant before us was the petitioner in O. P. No. 70 of 1958 of the Munsiff's Court of Tellicherry. That petition which has been held to be not maintainable in the judgment under appeal was under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932. 2. S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932, was inserted in Chapter II of that Act by the Madras Marumakkathayam (Amendment) Act, 1958. The section deals with permanent alimony and maintenance, and reads as follows: "(1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Chapter may on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall while the applicant remains unmarried, pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross 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 and the conduct of the parties, 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, vary, 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 has been leading a life of immorality it shall rescind the order," 3. Chapter II of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932, deals with marriages and their dissolution. S.4 indicates the marriages which are valid under that Act. S.6 provides that a marriage valid under S.4 may be dissolved by a registered instrument of dissolution executed by the parties thereto or by an order of dissolution by a court competent to pass such an order. S.4 indicates the marriages which are valid under that Act. S.6 provides that a marriage valid under S.4 may be dissolved by a registered instrument of dissolution executed by the parties thereto or by an order of dissolution by a court competent to pass such an order. S.1 specifies the court before which a husband or a wife may present a petition for the dissolution of their marriage. S 9 says: "On the motion of the petitioner made not earlier than six months after the service of the copy as aforesaid, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall on being satisfied after such inquiry as it thinks fit that a marriage which is valid under S.4 was contracted between the parties, by order in writing declare the marriage dissolved. The dissolution shall take effect from the date of such order." 4. The respondent before us filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage to the appellant after the Madras Marumakkathayam (Amendment) Act, 1958 came into force. The petition was allowed, and the marriage between them which was contracted on 9111947 was dissolved on 8 91958: 5. O. P. No. 70 of 1958 was filed by the appellant only on 15 91958, that is, after the dissolution of her marriage to the respondent. Vaidialingam J., has taken the view that a petition under S.10B should be filed before an order of dissolution is passed and that O. P. No. 70 of 1958 filed after the order of dissolution cannot be sustained. We entertain no doubt that the conclusion is correct. 6. S.10B makes it quite lear that a petition under that section should be filed either by a wife or by a husband. It is elementary that a petition filed after the dissolution of a marriage cannot be considered as one filed by a wife or a husband but only as one filed by a person who has lost the marital status. 7. S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that an order for permanent alimony and maintenance may be passed at the time of passing any decree under that Act or "at any time subsequent thereto", on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be. 7. S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that an order for permanent alimony and maintenance may be passed at the time of passing any decree under that Act or "at any time subsequent thereto", on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be. The local Legislature should have been aware of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at the time the Madras Marumakkathayam (Amendment) Act, 1958, was enacted; and if it wanted to provide for applications for permanent alimony and maintenance subsequent to the order of dissolution, we feel that it would have used appropriate words in that behalf. 8. There is a full discussion of all the aspects of the case in the judgment under appeal. It is unnecessary to go over the ground afresh. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. / Dismissed.