The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act and the Amendment Act to determine the maintainability of a revision application.

1. The petitioner has field this civil revision under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , challenging the order dated 23-12-98 passed under-section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing payment of alimony pendente lite. As Sec. 19 does not provide for any revision against the order impugned in this case, this Court, directed the Registry to submit a report regarding the maintainability of the revision. The Registry has submitted the report stating therein that the revision will be maintainable under Sec. 19 of the Act as amended by the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act).

2. We have perused Sec. 19 as amended by the Amendment Act and we find that it does not contain any provision providing for filing of revision against an order like the one impugned in this writ petition. By the said Amendment Act, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Sec. 19 have been re.-numbered as Sub-sections (5) and (6) respectively and before Sub-sec. (5) as so renumbered Sub-sec. (4) has been inserted whereby and whereunder jurisdiction has been given to the High Court suo mottu or otherwise to call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which Family Court has passed order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The revision, therefore, would lie from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no provision in the Act providing for revision against an order passed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or any other order passed under any other law. It may be mentioned that the Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 19 which has been re-numbered as Sub-section (5) states that "except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court". This provision completely bars filing of the revision against the impugned order. The Apex Court in SLP No. 25094/94 has laid down that Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act expressly bars an appeal or revision except as provided by Sub-sec. (1) of the said section which provides for an appeal against a final order only. Accordingly, it was observed that no revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against an order passed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is maintainable. The relevant extract from the Apex Courts said decision is reproduced below:

It is true that Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Family Courts Act expressly bars an appeal or revision except as provided by Sub-sec. (1). Sub-sec. (1) provides an appeal only against a final order passed by the Family Court. In this sense, the revision filed under Sec. 115 of the C.P.C. was not maintainable in law, but in extraordinary cases, the High Court may not be precluded from exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and rectify any grave injustice caused. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter also because the High Court has merely remanded the matter and it is upon the petitioner-husband to bring all the relevant facts to the notice of the trial Court at the time of hearing of the petitioner under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The above decision of the Apex Court does not appear to have been published in any journals but its extract reproduced hereinabove has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in Raj Kumar Srivastava V/s. Smt. Anjana Sinha 1996 (2) PLJR 885.

4. For the reasons given above, this revision application is not maintainable. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, if so advised, under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, has submitted that this revision application may be permitted to be converted into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. There cannot be any serious objection to such prayer. In view of the facts and circumstances of the c