Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
R. Venkatesan - Appellant
Versus
Lalitha @ Chandra – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 895 of 2023 & C.M.P. No. 8328 of 2023 in C.M.A. No. 895 of 2023
Decided On : 27-03-2024
For the Appellants : Aravind Subramaniyan, C.K. Lavanyavathi.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeals against pendente lite maintenance/interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not maintainable, but a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie, preserving the rights of the appellants for preferring revision.
Headnote:
Impugned Order - Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act - Appeal against pendente lite maintenance/interim maintenance order not maintainable, but a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie. Closure and preservation of rights as per S.Menaka v. K.S.K.Nepolian Socraties and other cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court held that such appeals are not maintainable but a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie, preserving the rights of the appellants for preferring revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appeal not maintainable and disposed of it, while preserving the rights of the appellants for preferring revision. The court did not express any view or opinion on the merits of the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal against the interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appeals against pendente lite maintenance/interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not maintainable but a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie, preserving the rights of the appellants for preferring revision.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of as not maintainable, with preservation of rights for preferring revision. The certified copy of the impugned order would be returned to the appellant's counsel, and there would be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
M. Sundar, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 as made in M.P.No.100 of 2021 in M.C.No.180 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai.)
1. Captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal' [hereinafter 'CMA' for the sake of brevity] has been filed assailing an 'order of pendente lite maintenance/interim maintenance order' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] made under Section 24 of 'The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [25 of 1955]' {hereinafter 'HM Act' for the sake of brevity}.
2. This Court vide a detailed common judgment/order dated 21.03.2024 in S.Menaka v. K.S.K.Nepolian Socraties and other cases {Batch} reported in 2024 MHC 1405 {Neutral Citation of Madras High Court} and 2024 Live Law (Mad) 126 inter alia held that appeals against pendente lite maintenance/interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of HM Act are not maintainable but a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie and preserved the rights of the appellants for preferring revision while giving closure to such CMAs.
3. In the aforementioned scenario, without dilating further on maintainability, suffice to say that captioned CMA will also be governed by S.Menaka v. K.S.K.Nepolian Socraties and other cases {Batch} reported in 2024 MHC 1405 and 2024 Live Law (Mad) 126 i.e., there would be closure and preservation of rights as in S.Menaka v. K.S.K.Nepolian Socraties and other cases {Batch} reported in 2024 MHC 1405 and 2024 Live Law (Mad) 126.
4. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned CMA is disposed of as not maintainable/closed albeit with preservation of rights in the aforementioned manner i.e., as in Menaka Principle.
5. As a further sequitur/consequence, captioned CMP is also disposed of as closed.
6. Though obvious, it is made clear that in this order, this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on merits qua captioned CMA.
7. If learned counsel on record for appellant in the captioned CMA requests for return of certified copy qua impugned order, the same shall be returned forthwith to learned counsel on record for the appellant under due acknowledgment.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
