Pursuant to the orders dated 3-4-2002 passed by a Division Bench (Honble Pradeep Kant and Honble M. A. Khan, JJ.) of this Court at Lucknow in First Appeal No. 17 of 2002

, Smt. Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava, filed under sub-sec tion (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of. 1984), Honble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Full Bench to answer:

"whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would lie against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of interim main tenance?"

Factual Background

2. The respondent Jai Prakash Srivastava filed a petition (Original Suit No. 77/87) against his wife (the appel lant) under Section 13 of the Hindu Mar riage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 19b5) in a Family Court at Lucknow. The wife moved one applica tion under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming to herself and to her daughter pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80007-a month and litigation expen ses to the tune of Rs. 11, 000/ -. The learned family Judge passed an order on 16-7-2001 directing the husband to pay pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- a month from the date of application and also to pay Rs. 2000/-in lump sum towards expenses of the litigation.

3. It appears, the wife was not satisfied with it, so she moved an ap plication under Section 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enhance the monthly maintenance to the extent of 1/3rd of the salary of the husband. The learned Judge passed an order on 28-7-2002, altering his previous order of 16-7-2001 so as to enhance the amount to the extent of 1/3rd of the salary of the husband but in doing so he subjected the same to the adjustment of any other amount of maintenance, being paid by the husband.

4. The husband moved one ap plication under Order 47 read with Sec tion 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing the two orders dated 16-7-2001 and 28-7-2001 inter alia on the grounds that he was not heard; that he was already paying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450 to his wife and at the rate of Rs. 500/- a month to the daughter, on the basis of a compromise arrived at in another case and that the question of awarding such pendente lite main tenance did not arise as the wife was gainfully employed as a teacher and was getting a handsome amount of Rs. 6000/- a month as salary. The wife op posed this application of the husband. The learned family Judge disposed of this application vide order dated 7-3-2002. By this order dated 7-3-2002 he directed for payment of the pendente lite maintenance in terms of earlier order dated 16-7-2001 but subject to adjustment of the amount being paid pursuant to the orders passed in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also warned the husband, if the amounts were not paid within a week, proceed ings in the divorce suit would be stayed.

5. When the said appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984 came up before the Division Bench, a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of such an appeal was raised on the basis of two Division Bench decisions of this Court at Al lahabad in Smt. Pratima Sen Gupta v. Sajal Sen Gupta, 1998 SCO 732 : 1998 (16) LCD 346) and Ravi Saran Prasad alias Kishore v. Smt. Rashmi Singh, AIR 2001 Allahabad 227 : 2001 (19) LCD 707. The appellant-wife tried to meet this objection by referring to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Avadhesh Narain Srivastava v. Archna Srivastava, 1990 LLJ 183 : 1990 (8) LCD 66. Finding the conflict in between the decisions in Avadhesh Narain Srivastavas case (supra) on the one hand and in the cases of Ravi Saran Prasad and Pratima Sen Gupta (supra) on the other, their Lordships directed the Registry to place the relevant papers before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the controversy as to wheth