An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:
FAMILY COURTS ACT - MAINTENANCE - APPEAL - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 - SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - The High Court held that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-husband filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance pendente lite and costs to the respondent-wife and children under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that: 1. Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 does not allow an appeal against an interlocutory order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. An order of maintenance pendente lite passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an interlocutory order and not a final order. 3. The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to protect the weaker spouse and to prevent vagrancy resulting from strained relationships between the spouses.
Issues: 1. Whether an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 from an order of maintenance pendente lite passed by the Judge of the Family Court on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a matrimonial petition? 2. Whether such an order is an interlocutory order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The Court held that the object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to protect the weaker spouse and to prevent vagrancy resulting from strained relationships between the spouses. Therefore, an order of maintenance pendente lite passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an interlocutory order and not a final order. 3. The Court also held that the object of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to provide speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes. Therefore, an appeal against an interlocutory order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-husband.

JUDGMENT - S. P. KURDUKAR, J.:-This First Appeal is directed against an order dated September 11, 1990 passed by the Family Court, Bombay, on Notice of Motion No. 5908 of 1989 in M. J. Petition No. 1036 of 1989. By this impugned order, the learned judge of the Family Court directed the appellant- petitioner (who is hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent-original respondent (who is hereinafter referred to as the 'wife' ) and Rs. 5,000/- to each of the two minor children from the date of the Notice of Motion. The learned Judge also directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the wife towards costs for defending the M. J. Petition.

2. M.J. Petition No. 1036 of 1989 is filed by the husband claiming a decree for judicial separation and for custody of the two minor children viz. Shikha and sneha. This petition was originally filed on 14th September, 1989 in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. During the pendency of the M. J. Petition, the wife took out Notice of Motion for interim reliefs praying for pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from August 1988 to herself and Rs. 20,000/- per month to two minor children. The wife also prayed for Rs. 20,000/- towards costs for defending the M. J. Petition. In addition to these principal interim reliefs, the wife also prayed for certain other interim reliefs. Parties in support of their rival claims filed affidavits. During pendency of the proceedings in the City Civil Court, Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity Family Courts Act) came to be established for Greater Bombay some time in October 1989 and pursuant thereto, present M. J. Petition along with ancillary proceedings were transferred to the Family Court.

3. The learned Judge after hearing both sides directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to each child towards maintenance from the date of the Notice of Motion. The learned Judge also directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the wife towards costs for defending the petition. It is a common premise that as far as order of maintenance to the wife is concerned, it is passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order of maintenance relating to two minor children appears to have been passed under section 26 of the H.M. Act, 1955.

4. In this appeal, the main question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the impugned order is appealable under section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Smt. S.D. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the wife at the threshold urged that the present appeal is not maintainable under section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

5. Before we deal with the preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the appeal, we deem it necessary to refer to relevant provisions under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'H.M. Act') which have got a vital bearing upon the issue of maintainability of the present appeal.

6. In this appeal, we are mainly concerned with the appeal provisions contained in section 28 of the H.M. Act. The H.M. Act is a special statue and section 28 as originally stood underwent a substantial change in the year 1976. Unamended section 28 reads as under :

"28. All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction are enforced and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force;

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

Under this unamended provision, appeal was maintainable from all decrees and orders passed under the H.M. Act, except against the order of costs. The result of this provision was that there used to be appeals against every order passed under the provisions of the H.M. Act, except order of costs. This resulted into flooding of appeals in the Appellate Court. The Parliament

Click Here to Read the rest of this document