ORDER :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

By Review Petition No. 79/2018, the review applicant (appellant in connected D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1709/2020, 1712/2020 and 1718/2020) has sought review of order dated 27.10.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3744/2016, Amit Vyas Vs. Pramila Alias Ranjana, whereby, appeal directed against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Hindu Marriage Act’), granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, was held not maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Family Courts Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the review-applicant would argue that though earlier an order was passed on 27.10.2017, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, it being against an order of grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent-wife, relying upon various decisions of different High Courts as also this Court, later on the issue with regard to maintainability of appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order of grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been resolved by Full Bench of this Court at principal seat at Jodhpur in this case of Kavita Vyas Vs. Deepak Dave, 2018(1) RLW 97 (Raj.). It is contended that the issue of maintainability of appeal against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act led to reference to Larger Bench. After examining the statutory scheme of the Family Courts Act, particularly the scope and ambit of Section 19 thereof and various judgments on the principle regarding interpretation of interlocutory order and finding support from the view taken by various High Courts, it has been finally concluded, while answering the reference, by declaring that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malik Vs. Smt. Shashi, 2011(2) RLW1615 (Raj.), does not lay down the correct view. The reference was answered by holding that an appeal shall lie under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the submission is that in view of the aforesaid decision, which is binding in nature, the order under review, which held that the appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, be reviewed and recalled and the appeal filed by the review-applicant be restored to its original number for consideration on its own merits by holding that the appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that this Court in the case of Rahul Singh Shekhawat Vs. Smt. Rama Chauhan (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2535/2018 decided on 09.11.2021), relying upon direct decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others (1978) 4 SCC 70, has held that the appeal against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not be maintainable. Argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra) is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kavita Vyas (supra), which has not taken into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra), has no precedential value.

4. Considering the complexity of the issue, this Court had requested Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate to assist the Court in arriving at just decision.

Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate made elaborate submissions with reference to plethora of decisions and contended that the issue regarding maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act would depend upon wh