Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

In a proceeding initiated by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') for dissolution of marriage on the ground enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1955, the respondent/ defendant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 stating inter alia that she has no independent income sufficient for her support and for necessary expenses of the proceeding therefore maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding be granted to her. The Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 21-8-2015 granted maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 4,000/- per month along with expenses of the proceeding of Rs. 3,000/- and conveyance allowance of Rs. 50/- per date of hearing to the respondent/defendant, and fixed the case for framing of issues.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the order granting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, the appellant herein preferred an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act of 1984').

3. This Court had earlier issued notice to the respondent and now, the respondent/ defendant has appeared and opposed the appeal. The case came up for hearing before this Court today for admission.

4. The question that has cropped up for consideration is, whether an order passed by the Judge, Family Court granting application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, is amenable to appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1984.

5. Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that order under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is covered within the meaning of order employed in Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1984, as the question of maintenance pendente lite has been finally determined, therefore, appeal would be maintainable.

6. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, would submit that the Judge, Family Court has rightly granted the order of maintenance and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He would further submit that the appeal as framed and filed is not maintainable against the interlocutory order, as appeal against interlocutory order is barred under Section 19 (1) read with Section 19 (5) of the Act of 1984.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and also the other documents available on record with utmost circumspection.

8. In order to appreciate the point in dispute, it would be apt to notice Section 28 of the Act of 1955, unamended, which reads as follows: -

"28. Enforcement of, and appeal from, decrees and orders.-All decrees and orders made by Court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the 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."

9. The Parliament by Act No.68 of 1976 substituted Section 28 of the Act of 1955 which now states as under: -

"28. Appeals from decrees and orders.-(1) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in the 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) Orders 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