Short Note : 1. The material facts are that the husband applied for restitution of conjugal rights or in the alternative, for judicial separation on 26.7.1962. A decree for judicial separation was passed on 25.9.1963. At the time when the decree for judicial separation was passed the wife was in service as a nurse. It appears from the judgment in the suit for judicial separation that the wife had applied for permanent alimony under section 37, but the application was refused on the ground that the wife was then earning and, therefore, she was not in need of any maintenance. It was also said in the judgment that the wife could apply later, if necessary, for maintenance. The wife retired from service on 18.5.1972. She applied for permanent alimony on 26.9.1972. The application was allowed and an order for maintenance was passed at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant first contends that under section 37 of the Divorce Act no maintenance can be allowed when a decree for judicial separation has been passed at the instance of the husband. Learned counsel draws our attention to the words any decree of judicial separation obtained by the wife as they occur in section 37 and submits that as no decree of judicial separation was obtained by the wife and the decree was obtained by the husband, section 37 is not attracted. The contention raised by the learned counsel in our opinion, has no merit. A perusal of the written statement filed by the wife in the earlier suit relating to judicial separation shows that the wife also pleaded that it was unsafe for her to live with the husband and that, therefore, she was obliged to accept the relief of judicial separation. The decree for judicial separation, in these circumstances, was a decree obtained by consent of the parties. The decree, therefore, can be described to be a decree not only obtained by the husband but also obtained by the wife. Further, the power of the Court to grant permanent alimony to the wife is not restricted to section 37 of the Act. The decree, therefore, can be described to be a decree not only obtained by the husband but also obtained by the wife. Further, the power of the Court to grant permanent alimony to the wife is not restricted to section 37 of the Act. Section 7 confers jurisdiction upon the Court to give relief on principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and matrimonial causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief. Section 37 of the Divorce Act is analogous to section 17 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857. It was consistently held in England that section 17 did not deprive the power of the Court to grant permanent alimony even in those cases where the decree for judicial separation was obtained by the husband Indeed, this view was taken of section 37 of the Divorce Act by the Oudh Chief Court in Mrs. Niblett vs. Mr. Niblert, AIR 1935 Oudh 133. We are in respectful agreement with this view. The application made by the wife for permanent alimony was, therefore, maintainable. AIR 1935 Oudh 133 relied on. Appeal dismissed.