K.T.THOMAS, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
K. D. Thankkappan Nair – Appellant
Versus
B. A. Presanna Kumari – Respondent
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
Amar Nath v. State of Haryana 1977 (4) SCC 137
Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1990 (3) SCC 588)
K. S. Das v. State of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 358)
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1977 (4) SCC 551
Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector (1992 (2) KLT 860)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.