SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ker) 392

K.T.THOMAS, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
K. D. Thankkappan Nair – Appellant
Versus
B. A. Presanna Kumari – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K.T. Thomas, J.

1. S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') forbids appeal as well as revision against any interlocutory order. What is the width of the expression "interlocutory order" in the context of that provision? The question needs answer in this appeal filed against an order passed by a Family Court.

2. The question arose in the following backdrop: Appellant is the husband of the first respondent. He filed an application under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. When first respondent claimed maintenance allowance pendente lite, the lower court directed the appellant to pay such maintenance allowance to the first respondent and her children. The case was subsequently transferred to the Family Court. As the appellant failed to pay the maintenance allowance, first respondent resorted to steps for realisation of the amount. One such step was to attach the commission or salary due to the appellant from Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 12-8-94 the Family Court Judge passed the following order: "Attach salary to the extent of Rs. 1,500/- per month". This appeal is filed in challenge of the said order.

3. O.21






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top