An order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting maintenance pendente lite, could be considered a 'judgment' and the appeal was maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984) against an order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 123 of 2008, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), whereby an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been ordered to be given to the wife of the appellant under Section 24 of 1955 Act as maintenance pendente lite proceeding under Section 13 of 1955 Act, instituted by the husband, who is the appellant before this Court.

2. All the same, before this case could be heard on merits, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal under Section 19 of 1984 Act. The short contention of the respondent before this Court is that an appeal can be filed under Section 19 of 1984 Act only against a judgment, or an order which is not of an interlocutory nature, but since the order under challenge dated 20.3.2010 has been passed by the Family Court on an application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of 1955 Act for maintenance in pendente lite of the proceeding, the orders passed therein is essentially of an interlocutory nature and since Section 19 (1) of 1984 Act specifically bars an appeal against an interlocutory order, the present appeal is not maintainable.

3. The counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that the present appeal under Section 19 (1) of Act, 1984 before this Court is not against an interlocutory order, but it is against a judgment or at least against an order which has all the trappings of a judgment, therefore, it cannot be called an “interlocutory order” and therefore, asserts that the objections raised by the respondent are entirely misconceived.

4. Before this Court adjudicates upon the merits of the case, since a preliminary objection on a pure question of law has been raised before this Court, it is necessary that this Court first deals with this preliminary objection, before proceeding on merits of the case.

5. Section 19(1) of the 1984 Act reads as follows:-

“19. Appeal –(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.”

6. The counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has relied upon a catena of judgments passed by various High Courts as well as by the Supreme Court. The first three cases relied upon by the respondent are Sunil Hansraj Gupta Vs. Payal Sunil Gupta, Radheshyam Gupta Vs. Smt. Laxmi Bai as well as Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Smt. Taran Jit. In all the three cases cited above, an order was passed under Section 24 of 1955 Act and the question before the Courts was as to whether in such a contingency an appeal under Section 28 of 1955 Act is maintainable? Therefore, what has been examined in all these cases is the maintainability of such an order under Section 28 of 1955 Act. Sections 24 and 28 of 1955 Act, read as under:-

“24. Maintenance pendent elite 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 petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:

[Provided that the application for the pay