JUDGMENT :

A.J.DESAI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the present appellant has challenged a CAV judgement dated 27/09/2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14887 of 2017, by which, the petition filed at the instance of the respondents, has been accepted and maintenance, which was not granted in favour of the wife, has been allowed and maintenance granted in favour of the daughter, has been increased and in all the appellant has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to the respondents i.e. wife and daughter of the appellant.

2. At the outset, Ms.Shailaja, learned advocate appearing for the respondents i.e. wife and daughter has raised an objection about maintainability of the appeal, which has been filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent under Rule 81 of Chapter- VI of The Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

3. Ms.E.Shailaja, learned advocate for the respondents would submit that the present appellant has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 seeking decree of divorce on various grounds. An application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was submitted by the wife seeking maintenance during the pendency of the Divorce Petition filed by her husband. The application was exhibited as Exh.15 in the said petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No.534 of 2012. Family Court, Vadodara vide order dated 12/05/2017 accepted the said application in part and granted maintenance only to the daughter to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month, however refused to grant any maintenance to the wife. The said decision was challenged by the wife by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14887 of 2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which has been allowed. She would submit that when the Court has exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising from the order of Civil Court, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed only on this ground.

3.1 In support of her submissions, she has taken us through the provisions of Government of India Act particularly Sections 107 and 108 of the said Act. She would submit that as per Section 107 of the said Act, the High Court has superintendence over all courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction and may pass appropriate order. Language of Article 222 is paramateria with the aforesaid provision and therefore, as per clause 15, which referred civil jurisdiction of the High Court with Appendix of The Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, the Letters Patent Appeal would not lie before Division Bench of this Court. She would further submit that similar issue arose in past, which has been dealt with by this Court as well as by Hon’ble Apex Court and it has been made amply clear that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie if the proceedings are arising out of learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arsing from the order of Civil Court. She would further submit that the dispute is only of civil in nature between private parties and therefore also, it can be said that learned Single Judge has exercised power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though the petition was filed by the wife under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.2 In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision dated 05/05/2011 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gustadji Dhanjisha Buhariwala & Another V/s. Nevil Bamansha Buhariwala & Ors reported in 2011(2) GLR 1357, wherein it has been held that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against the order of learned Single Judge wherein the court has exercised power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She would submit that this decision was delivered by Division Bench during the pendency of Reference involvi