The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on appeals and the distinction between interlocutory orders and final judgments under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 1 ) IN this Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the husband assails validity of an order dated 5/03/2001 passed by Sri R. B. Pandey, Judge, Family Court, Agra in Suit No. 446 of 1998 allowing the application dated 3/05/1999 filed by the respondent-wife under Sections 24/26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 commanding the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1200. 00 (Rs. 800/- per month for her and Rs. 400. 00 per month for their son) for maintenance with effect from the date of her application, besides a lump sum of Rs. 1500. 00 towards litigation expenses.

( 2 ) THE office has raised an objection that in view of Section 19 (5) of the Family Courts Act this appeal is not maintainable.

( 3 ) SRI Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant, contests the objection aforementioned by submitting that true it is that the impugned order was passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but in view of the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raghvendra Singh Choudhary v. Smt. Seema Bai, AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 259 holding that an appeal will lie against an interlouctory order, if it is a judgment and that the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a judgment as it decides the question of maintenance during the pendency of the suit, therefore, there is a final adjudication. 8

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the provisions as contained in Sections 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and S. 19 (1) and (5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the object of this Act as stated in the Bill that only one appeal shall lie and that too before the High Court we respectfully differ from the ratio laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which in its turn has placed reliance on a Bombay High Court Judgment in Dinesh Gijubhai Mehta v. Smt. Usha Dinesh Mehta, AIR 1979 Bombay 173 and the Honble Supreme Courts decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Janyaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786, the last one is clearly distinguishable.

( 5 ) SECTION 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, under which the order in question has been passed, reads thus :-"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. "

( 6 ) IT is well settled that appeal and/or revision is a creature of statute. Section 28 of the Act aforementioned reads thus :-"28. Appeals from decrees and orders.- (1) All decrees made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall like to the Court to which appeals ordinarily he from the decisions of the Court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act under Section 25 or Section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order. "apparently the Legislature has excluded preference of an appeal under the Act aforementioned against an order passed under Section 24 of the Act.

( 7 ) THE Bill for enactment of the Family Courts Act, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document