An interim order of maintenance allowance in proceedings under Section 125, CrPC is an interlocutory order and no appeal lies against such an order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

N.L. Tibrewal, J.-These miscellaneous appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) are directed against the order dated April 7, 1992 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer. A common question of law has been raised in all these appeals, hence they are disposed of by a common order. The learned Family Court Judge has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 0/-p.m. to the minors Anu Atul and Manu Abhijit in the proceedings under Section 125, CrPC Appeals No. 431 and 389 have been filed by the minors seeking to increase the maintenance allowance, while Appeals No. 351 and 366 are filed by the father Ratan Lal challenging the order of interim maintenance allowance.

2. The facts leading to the appeals may be narrated in short. The appellant Ratan Lal was married to Smt. Padamja on May 2, 1982. From their wed-lock two sons viz., the appellant @ Abhijit and Anu Atul were born on 27th January, 1984 and 27th June, 1985 respectively. Both minors are living with their mother Smt. Padamja Sharma. Proceedings under Section 125, CrPC were initiated on their behalf in the Family Court, Jaipur. It appears that Smt. Padamja has also moved a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage. One more petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by her. All these petitions are now pending in the Family Court, Ajmer after they were transferred by this Court.

3. On September 17, 1990, the learned Judge Family Court had granted interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/-p.m. to each of the minors from the date of the application. This order was challenged by Ratan Lal before this Court and this Court vide order dated February 27 1991, sent the case back to the Family Court after setting aside the order, of interim maintenance allowance. Thereafter, the learned Judge Family Court has awarded Rs. 250/-p.m. as interim maintenance allowance to the appellants Anu Atul and Manu Abhijit from the date, of application by the impugned order which is under challenge in the appeals. We are not concerned with other part of the order as these appeals are related with the order awarding interim maintenance

allowance. During the course of arguments a question arose for our determination as to whether the present appeals are maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act., We, therefore, heard arguments on this preliminary question without going into the merits of the case. Before, we deal with the question of the maintainability of the appeals, we deem it necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the Act which have vital bearing on the question involved.

4. TheFamily Courts Act, 1984 was enacted by Parliament and it received the assent of the President on September 14, 1984. The Act was enforced in Rajasthan from November 19, 1985. The Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of , disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. Chapter III deals with the jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that a Family Court shall also, have and exercise the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Section 8 excludes the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to such area where a Family Court is established. Section 17 defines ‘judgment’ as under:-

“17. Judgment--Judgment of A Family Court shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.

Section 18 provides the procedure of execution of decrees and orders. Then Chapter V provides only Section 19 which deals with the appeals. The entire controversy relating to the maintainability of appeals centres ar