Interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dismiss the appeal on the ground of maintainability of appeal.)

(A) PRELUDE :

The Desideratum of the expression ‘not being an interlocutory order’ in Sub section (1) of Section 19 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) is the nucleus, nay epicenter of the legal drill on hand.

2. A very interesting question arises in captioned matters and the same is as follows :

‘Whether statutory appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act are maintainable as against impugned orders owing to the expression ‘....not being an interlocutory order....’ in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?’

Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to write that as the hearing progressed, it surfaced / came to light that aforementioned pivotal question is dovetailed with a further question as to whether a statutory appeal under section 28 of HM Act will lie as against an order of interim maintenance / pendente lite maintenance made under section 24 of HM Act.

(B) NARRATIVE AND TRAJECTORY THUS FAR :

3. Before we undertake the legal drill qua the aforementioned desideratum, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce some of the proceedings / orders made in earlier listings of captioned matters / some of the captioned matters and the same are as follows :

Proceedings dated 02.01.2024:

‘C.M.A. Nos.954 & 2198 of 2023

M. SUNDAR, J.,

and

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,

(Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

Captioned two ‘Civil Miscellaneous Appeals’ (‘CMAs’ in plural and ‘C.M.A.’ in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity) are statutory appeals under Section 19 of ‘The Family Courts Act, 1984’ (hereinafter ‘F.C. Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience).

2. Captioned C.M.As are cross appeals as both appeals are directed against the same order i.e., order dated 09.02.2023 made in I.A. No. 02 of 2019 , 02/2019) in F.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Erode, (Erode District). This 09.02.2023 order in I.A. No. 02 of 2019 , 02/2019) in F.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017’ shall be referred to as ‘impugned order’ and Family Court, Erode (Erode District) shall be referred to as ‘said Family Court’ for the sake of convenience.

3. The parties who are in marital discord are K. Somasundaram (aged 50 in 2017) and S. Chitra (aged 44 in 2017). K. Somasundaram (husband) has filed F.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017 seeking divorce/dissolution of marriage between him and S. Chitra which was solemnized on 22.10.1997. Divorce has been sought on the grounds of cruelty and desertion i.e., Section 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of ‘Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955)’ (hereinafter ‘H.M. Act’ for the sake of brevity).

4. Pending F.C.O.P, wife/S. Chitra took out aforementioned I.A.No.02/2019 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation cost and this application has been filed under Section 24 of H.M. Act. This I.A.No.02 of 2019 was disposed of vide impugned order made by the said Family Court, ordering Rs.20,000/- per month interim maintenance from the date of filing of F.C.O.P. to the date of conclusion of main F.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017.

5. Aggrieved, both husband and wife have filed captioned appeals.

6. Husband has filed captioned ‘C.M.A.No.954 of 2023’ (herein after ‘I CMA’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) assailing the impugned order saying that interim maintenance ought not to have been ordered.

7. Wife has filed aforementioned C.M.A. No.2198 of 2023 (herein after ‘II CMA’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) assailing the impugned order inter alia saying that Rs.40,000/- per month interim maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- litigation cost prayers ought to have been acceded to.

8. The Hon’ble Predecessor Bench while issuing notice in I CMA (husband’s CMA) gra