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 Court are expressly declared to be appealable and this being an order directing payment of interim maintenance under S. 24, it would be appealable and the appeal would lie to the District Court. In supoprt of this argument Mr. Thakkar relies on a recent judgment of this court Gangadhar Rakhamaji v. Manjula 61 Bom LR 442. In that case it was held that when a Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, notified by the State Government as having jurisdiction in respect of matters dealt with in the Act passes a decree in a petition under the Act, an appeal against the decree lies to the District Court of the district and not to the High Court. Now, that was a case where an appeal was filed to this Court against the dismissal of the husbands petition for divorce or judicial separation under the Act. The contention ofMr. Thakkar is that all orders passed by the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, under the Act would stand on the same footing as decrees, nd appeals from such orders must lie to the District Court. In order to test the correctness of his argument, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of s. 28 of the Act which runs as follows :

"All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceedings under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction law for the time being in force :

Provided that there shall be no appeal on the subject of costs only."

This section consists of two parts. The first part of the section deals with the mode or manner of executing decrees and orders passed by the Court in any proceedings and the section provides that such decrees and orders are to be enforced in the same manner as the decrees and orders of the Court exercising original Civil Jurisdiction. The second part of the section deals with the question of appeals from such decrees and orders made by the Court in the proceedings under th Act, and provides that all decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceedings under the Act may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force. Now, the short question that falls for consideration is the interpretation to be put on the second art of the section which deals with appeals from decrees and orders made by the Court under S. 28 of the Act all decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under the Act are made subject to an appeal and that the reference to any law for the time being in force is only for the purpose of prescribing the procedure which will govern these appeals, and the forum where the appeal is to be preferred. Thus, according to Mr. Thakkar, if an order is passed by the Court of the Civil judge, Senior Division, in any proceeding under the Act, the question whether an appeal lies is not to be d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document