JUDGMENT - (1) This was a revision application against an order passed under s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, by which he directeddd the petitioner to pay to his wife opponent No. 1 Rs. 250/- per month for maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 300/- for the expenses of the proceeding filed by her for judicial separation and permanent alimony under S. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There was a further direction in the order that the petitioner should pay arrears of maintenance upto date and Rs. 300/- for the expenses of the proceedings on or before 15th June 1959 and on his failure to do so his defence was to be struck off.

ORDER

(After stating the facts His Lordship proceeded as follows :) Mr. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opponent No. 1, has raised a preliminary objection and contended that against the order passed by the learned trial Judge an appeal would be competent to the District Court and if an appeal is competent, then, contends Mr. Thakkar, a revision application would not be maintainable. The argument of Mr. Thakkar on this point briefly is that under S. 28 of the Act all decrees and orders made by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document