Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Whether an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Presiding Officer of a Family Court is an appealable order or not is the question referred to the Full Bench of this Court.

2. Currently a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2010 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4559/2009 Ajay Malik vs. Smt. Shashi holds the field and the view taken is that the appeal is not maintainable. The finding in para 5 is the opinion of the Court and we find that there is no discussion therein. In para 5 of the decision of the Division Bench it is recorded as under:-

"5. This Court has considered contentions advanced by Counsel for parties, and with their assistance, examined material on record. We find substance in the preliminary objection raised by Counsel for respondent under section 19(1) of the Act, 1984 an appeal lies against every judgment or order but not being an interlocutory order of the Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. In the instant case, the order impugned has been passed by the learned Family Court granting pendente lite maintenance under section 24 of HM Act is certainly an interlocutory in nature; in such circumstances, in view of Section 19(1) of HM Act, instant misc. appeal is maintainable."

3. There appears to be a typographical error in the last line of paragraph 5 and the word not between the last two words is and maintainable is missing.

4. Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for appeal and we quote. The Section reads as under:-

"19. Appeal - (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.

(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.

(6) An appeal referred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges."

5. A perusal of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would evince that save as provided in subsection (2) thereof and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

6. Thus, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every judgment or order save and except an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court subject to sub-section (2) of Section 19 and notwithstanding anything else contained in any other law.

7. The question would be whether an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an order of the kind where an appeal would lie there against.

8. Ex-facie the legi