JUDGMENT - GUTTAL G.H., J.:—This appeal has been placed before us upon a reference made by Daud, J., made on 13th March, 1987. The facts giving rise to this reference are as under:

2. The appellant, who is the wife of the respondent to this appeal, instituted M.J. Petition No. 714 of 1977 for divorce on the grounds that the respondent husband was guilty of adultery and cruelty. The parties are Indian Christians and are governed by the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). During the pendency of the M.L. Petition No. 714, the appellant made a Petition viz. No. 77 of 1982 for alimony pendente lite under section 36 of the Act. On 25th January, 1983, the Bombay City Civil Court, where the M.J. Petition No. 714 of 1977 was sent for trial and disposal, made an order awarding a sum of Rs. 100/- to the appellant as interim alimony. On 28th January, 1983, the same Court allowed a sum of Rs. 750/- towards the expenses to prosecute the petition. On the same day, M.J. Petition No. 714 of 1977 was disposed of by a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. In this appeal, the order of the Bombay City Civil Court dated 25th January, 1983 awarding interim alimony of Rs. 100/- p.m. is impugned. This first appeal was filed on 21st March, 1983. An appeal by the respondent challenging the decree of divorce is pending in this Court. The petitioner-appellant claims that the amount of Rs. 100/- is not commensurate with the income of the respondent.

3. When the appeal was called out for hearing before Daud, J., the respondent urged that in view of section 55 of the Act and the Judgment by a Single Judge of this Court in (Prithvirajsinghji v. Bai Shiva Prabhakumari)1, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 315 : 1960 N.L.J. 92 the order granting interim alimony was not appealable. On consideration of section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it then stood, and which is pari materia with section 55 of he Act, Gokhale, J., held that the Appeal against an order of interim alimony was not maintainable. In (Lallubhai v. Nirmalaben)2, A.I.R. 1972 Guj. 174 a contrary view was taken and it was held that the order of interim alimony was appealable. Daud, J., who was inclined to accept the view of the Gujarat High Court, found it difficult to do so in view of the Judgment delivered by Gokhale, J. He, therefore, referred this Appeal to the Division Bench by his order dated 13th March, 1987.

4. Daud, J., has not formulated the question referred to us. In order to focus attention on the exact question referred to us, we formulate the question as under:–

“Having regard to the provisions of section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, is an order of alimony pendente lite made under section 36 of the Act, appealable?”

5. Three sections of the Act are relevant for the consideration of the question that has been referred to us. We will briefly set out the substance of these sections. Section 36 provides that in any suit under the Act, the wife may present a petition for alimony pending the suit. Section 45, which appears in Part XII under the caption “Procedure” reads thus:

“Subject to the provisions herein contained, all proceedings under this Act between party and party shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.”

The relevant part of section 55, the language of which we are called upon to construe, reads as under:

“All decrees and orders made by the Court in any suit or proceeding under this Act... may be appealed from in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction...may be appealed from under the laws, rules and orders for the time being in force.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it stood in 1960, has employed identical words. It reads:–

“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 are enforced, and may be appeale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document