SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Mukund Murari Mahto S/o Anant Lal Mahto - Appellant
Versus
Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi D/o Mukund Murari Mahto - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 457 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Baibhaw Gahlaut, Rajiv Ranjan, Subhneet Jha, Sudhanshu Shekhar
For the Respondent: Kaustav Roy

An interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; thus, Article 227 is the appropriate remedy.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Petition for quashing Family Court's interim maintenance order of Rs.2,000/- per month - Court held that the order is interlocutory and only petition under Article 227 is maintainable, as appeal under Section 19 is barred for interlocutory orders. (Paras 3, 4, 29)

(B) Appeal - Maintainability - An order is interlocutory if it does not finally determine rights and obligations; thus, appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is not available. (Paras 22, 29)

(C) Interim Maintenance - Definition - The court clarified that interim maintenance does not constitute a final adjudication of rights, maintaining the ongoing nature of the proceedings. (Paras 21, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, suffering from cancer, challenged an interim maintenance order issued by the Family Court to his daughter, who was found to be capable of maintaining herself. The petitioner argued that the daughter had previously been denied maintenance under a separate Domestic Violence Act petition. (Paras 31-33)

Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned order to be interlocutory and thus set it aside, directing the Family Court to address the pending application under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. (Paras 35-36)

Issues: Whether an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (Paras 14, 29)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an order determining interim maintenance is interlocutory and cannot be appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, thus making Article 227 the appropriate remedy. (Paras 29, 36)

Result: The impugned order dated 08.01.2024 is set aside.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Original Suit No.708 of 2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as pendente lite.

3. When this matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party raised a question about the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that since the order is passed of interim maintenance by the Family Court, Bokaro under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it was pointed out that in light of Section 19 of Family Court’s Act only appeal will lie against the said order. He submits that petition was filed under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, in the impugned order Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is reflected.

4. In view of his such preliminary objection, the learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party was called upon to first address the Court on the issue of maintainability and in view of that he submits that Section 19 of the Family Court’s Act provides remedy of appeal and in light of that the said order is appealable and the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. According to him, the nature of order is final, as such only appeal can be maintained under the said section of Family Court’s Act. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Jayanti Prasad Gautam vs. Pragya Gautam,(2018) SCC OnLine Del 11535 and he placed reliance upon paragraph No.7 of the said judgment which is as under :-

7. Once the Legislature has provided the remedy of appeal, that too to the Division Bench against the impugned order, the principle enshrined in large number of judgments discussed in dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Dinkar Kumar v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2288 relating to writ jurisdiction would apply i.e. that the writ court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedy is available. It is not the case that the challenge to the impugned order made in this writ petition cannot be made in appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that this petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of that this issue may kindly be decided in favour of the sole opposite party and the petitioner may take his further remedy in light of the provision made under Section 19 of Family Court’s Act.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contention of learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party is not correct as the order itself speaks of interim maintenance and in view of that it is an interlocutory order, as such only petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be maintained. He relied in a Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Neelam Kumari Sinha vs. Prashant Kumar, (2010) 0 Supreme (Pat) 1299and he placed reliance upon paragraph No.3 of the said judgment which is as under :-

3. An order passed under Section 24 of the 1955 Act was appealable under Section 28 of the 1955 Act. After the amendment in the year 1976, Section 28 of the 1955 Act had undergone a sea change. The unamended Section 28 of the 1955 Act reads as follows :-

28. All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction are enforced and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force; Provided that there shall be no appeal on the subjec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top