R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

An order granting temporary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Appeal against an order of temporary injunction passed by a Family Court is not maintainable. This is the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court consisting one of us (Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim) in Manga Lakshmi v. Basanth Kumar (2016 (3) KHC 111 : 2016(2) KLT 776). But, this appeal is filed ignoring the aforesaid declaration of law made by this Court in Manga Lakshmi (supra).

2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 06.10.2005. The appellant filed O.P.No.1222 of 2017 against the respondent in the Family Court, Thrissur for granting a decree for cancellation of the settlement deed No.4048/2012 which was executed by him in favour of the respondent in respect of the petition schedule property. His plea in the original petition is that the settlement deed executed by him is a sham document and that the respondent has not acquired any right over the petition schedule property by virtue of that document.

3. The case O.P.No.1222/2017 was subsequently transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad and numbered as O.P.No.264 of 2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application as I.A.No.498/2018 for granting an order of temporary injunction against the appellant restraining him from entering into the petition schedule property or altering its nature or committing any waste therein and also making any construction therein. She also prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from causing any obstruction to her to enter into the petition schedule property and taking yield from the trees in the property. She alleged that when she went to the property on 06.04.2018 to take the yield from the coconut trees, the appellant obstructed her from entering into the property.

4. The appellant filed counter statement in the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent refuting the allegations made against him and contending that the respondent has got no right or possession over the property.

5. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent restraining the appellant from altering the nature of the petition schedule property, causing any mischief therein and causing any obstruction to the respondent from entering into the property and collecting coconuts from the coconut trees in the property and making any construction therein. This order is challenged in the appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law, an appeal shall lie against every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court, both on facts and on law. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act further provides that, except as provided under sub-sections (1) to (4), no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.

8. It is evident that an interlocutory order is excluded from the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act which provides for an appeal against "every judgment or order of a Family Court”. The position is made further clear by sub-section (5) Section 19 of the Act.

9. In Manga Lakshmi (supra), this Court has held that an order of temporary injunction passed by a Family Court does not finally decide the rights and obligations of the parties and that it is only intended to preserve the subject matter of the lis. It is an order which is procedural in nature rather than substantive in deciding the issues involved in the case. Taking note of the legislative intent involved in Section 19 of the Act, this Court held that an order of temporary injunction passed by a Family Court is an interlo