JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal by Ram Chandra against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur allowing the petition of Smt. Vidyawati under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granting her Rs. 50/- per month towards maintenance. This amount of maintenance was made a first charge on house No. 111-A/73 situate in Ashoka Nagar, Kanpur, belonging to Ram Chandra appellant. The amount of maintenance was made payable from the date of the petition. In addition, Smt. Vidyawati was to get the cost of the proceeding from the present appellant.. 2. The material facts of the case are that Smt. Vidyawati was the legally wedded wife of Ram Chandra, but after she became insane Ram Chandra secured a decree of divorce and it was thereafter that the present petition was made for maintenance. 3. The petition was opposed on merits and also on the ground of non-maintainability. It was said that the petition was not maintainable because Smt. Vidyawati was no longer the wife of Ram Chandra. Smt. Vidyawati had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month; but, as already mentioned above, she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Both these points were raised before me. Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act runs as below: "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 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 immoveable property of the respondent." 4. Permanent maintenance can thus be granted by the Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act. As no restriction has been imposed, such jurisdiction can be exercised in any suit or proceeding under this Act. Permanent maintenance can thus be granted by the Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act. As no restriction has been imposed, such jurisdiction can be exercised in any suit or proceeding under this Act. 'The request for maintenance can be made either in a separate petition under Section 25 moved after the passing of the decree or in the written statement filed by the respondent. Such request can also be made at any stage prior to the passing of the decree. Section 25(1) permits the making of a petition for permanent alimony and maintenance at any time subsequent to the passing of there. The intention of the legislature k clearly was that the court can grant permanent alimony and maintenance even if no such order was passed at the time of the passing the decree. Consequently, where a petition under Section 25 for the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance is made after the passing of the decree, it shall be made by a person who could make such a petition or such a request before the passing of the decree. There can be no dispute in that, prior to the passing of the decree, in the case of divorce of the wife on the ground of her insanity, the petition or request of the wife for permanent maintenance shall be maintainable, Consequently, when such a petition can be made even after the passing of the decree, the petition shall be by the divorced wife, which, for the purposes of Section 25, shall be by the wife. The words "by either the wife or the husband" used in Section 25(1) must, therefore, be considered in the above light and the court shall not be justified in giving a narrow meaning to the words "wife" and "husband." 5. It is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that the courts of law can depart from the ordinary meaning of the words used in the enactment if otherwise it is not possible to give effect to the intention of the legislature. This rule is adopted where the intention of the legislature is clear and beyond controversy. Any error in drafting is, in such circumstances, disregarded and the courts are free to give that meaning which the legislature had in mind at the time the law was made. 6. This rule is adopted where the intention of the legislature is clear and beyond controversy. Any error in drafting is, in such circumstances, disregarded and the courts are free to give that meaning which the legislature had in mind at the time the law was made. 6. In the instant case, Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act gives expression to the intention of the legislature in very clear words, viz. that in all the proceedings under viz., Act permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted even after the passing of the decree in the same mariner as it could be granted at the time of the passing of the decree. Consequently, a petition, under Section 25 of the divorced wife shall be maintainable in the same manner as her prayer made earlier could be entertained and allowed by the Court. 7. The same inference can be drawn from the words "while the applicant remains unmarried" used in the sub-section. These words also suggest that the maintenance is payable to a person who was the wife or the husband but is no longer the wife or husband. 8. To say that permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted to the divorced wife at the time of the passing-Or-tredecree an not at any subsequent state would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 25 (1). In fact, it will lead to an anomalous position. In any case, this shall be against the very provisions of Section 25(1). 9. The learned advocate for the appellant however, placed reliance upon the case of Mehta Gurvantray Maganlal v. Bai Prabha Keshavji, A.I.R. 1963 , Gujarat 242, where it was held that a petition under 'Sec. 25 by a divorced wife, who was no longer the wife, was hot maintainable. This opinion was expressed on giving a narrow meaning to the words "wife" and "husband" used in Section 25. For reasons already indicated above, I cannot subscribe to this view. 10. In other words, the present petition by the divorced wife, Smt. Vidyawati, after the passing of the decree of divorce was maintainable. 11. From the documents on record it is evident that the salary including D. A. of the appellant in the month of August 1961 was Rs. 252.37 paise and he was liable to pay Rs. 25/- towards provident fund. 11. From the documents on record it is evident that the salary including D. A. of the appellant in the month of August 1961 was Rs. 252.37 paise and he was liable to pay Rs. 25/- towards provident fund. Nett salary payable to him, without making any allowance for deductions, comes to Rs. 227.37 paise. The appellant had taken loan for the construction of a house which fetches a monthly" rent of Rs. 88/-. Thus his total income comes to Rs. 315.37 paise. He had taken- loans from three sources Rs. 7,500/- from the U. P. Co-operative Bank, Rs. 1,8001- from the Provident Fund and Rs. 1,200/. from the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration Co-operative Society. The last two loans were repayable within two years and must have been paid up in full. These two loans can thus be disregarded while determining the maintenance payable to Smt. Vidyawati. Towards the loan taken from the U. P. Co-operative Bank the appellant had to pay Rs. 43.19 paise every month. 12. The appellant also prays that Rs. 43/- paid by him towards the rent-of the house occupied by him should also be deducted from his nett income. It is evident that the appellant has retained for the use a few rooms in the house belonging to him. In case he wanted to live in the rented house, he could have given on lease the above rooms also. Otherwise, he should live in a portion of his house and release the rented accommodation. In the circumstances, the rent of the accommodation at present occupied by the appellant can be disregarded. 13. The nett amount available to appellant to meet the day to day expense of the family thus comes to Rs. 272.18 paise. 14. The family of the appellant consists of himself and his four sons. a One of the sons is said to be married but I am not taking notice of this marriage because it was not necessary to marry the son while he was studying in a college. In addition, there is the divorced wife Smt. Vidyawati. Consequently, an amount not exceeding ?th of the above amount can be granted to her by way of maintenance. To say that Smt. Vidyawati does not require any substantial money for her. maintenance shall be wrong. To maintain an insane person is more expensive than to maintain a sane person. In addition, there is the divorced wife Smt. Vidyawati. Consequently, an amount not exceeding ?th of the above amount can be granted to her by way of maintenance. To say that Smt. Vidyawati does not require any substantial money for her. maintenance shall be wrong. To maintain an insane person is more expensive than to maintain a sane person. Keeping all these factors in mind the amount of maintenance payable to Smt. Vidyawati is fixed at Rs, 40.1- (Rs. Forty only) per month. 15. The First Appeal From Order is hereby allowed only to the extent that the amount of monthly maintenance is reduced to Rs. 40/- (Rs. Forty only) per month. Costs of this court on the parties. It is further ordered that the appellant shall be liable to pay the costs of Smt. Vidyaw ti of the court below.