An order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is considered an interlocutory order and can be challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Questioning the pregnability of the order dated, 19th December, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Divorce Case No. 15/05, whereby the said Court had allowed an ad interim maintenance of Rs. 4,500 per month and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the Petitioner-wife in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity "the 1955 Act") and under Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short "the 1984 Act"), the Petitioner-wife has preferred the present civil revision invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Before the learned Single Judge, the question of maintainability of the revision was raised on the basis of an order passed on 23rd February, 2010 in Misc. Appeal No. 654 of 2009 (Anand Kumar Thakur v. Madhuri Kumari) wherein it has been held that a miscellaneous appeal would be the proper remedy under Section 19(1) of the 1984 Act.

2. The learned Single Judge, after referring to certain provisions of the Act and the decisions in the field, expressed a doubt with regard to the order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 654 of 2009 and referred the following questions and felt that the controversy should be put to rest by a larger Bench. The learned Single Judge recommended the following issue for adjudication by a larger Bench: Whether an appeal would be available under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? That is how the matter has been placed before us.

3. An order passed under Section 24 of the 1955 Act was appealable under Section 28 of the 1955 Act. After the amendment in the year 1976, Section 28 of the 1955 Act had undergone a sea change. The unamended Section 28 of the 1955 Act reads as follows:

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.

4. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, there can be no shadow of doubt that an appeal did lie from an order passed under the Act. The Parliament by Act No. 68 of 1976 substituted Section 28. The substituted provision contained in Section 28 reads as follows:

28. (1) All decrees made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act, shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the Court made in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Order made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act under Section 25 or Section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4) Every appeal under this Section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order.

5. On a studied scrutiny of the amended provision, it is clear as noon day that the right of appeal against interim order passed under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Act has been expressly taken away. It has also been clearly provided that the orders passed under Section 25 or Section 26 shall be subject to the provision of Sub-section (3) and are appellable if they are not interim orders. Section 25 of the 1955 Act deals with grant of permanent alimony. The aforesaid provisions came to be interpreted in Captain Ramesh Chancier Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (1978) 4