JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. In view of the order being passed, notices to opposite party no.1, being merely proforma in nature, stand dispensed with.

2. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 13th October, 2022 passed in Regular Suit No.1896 of 2021 instituted by the petitioner under Section 13-A of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. By means of aforesaid order, the earlier order dated 06th September, 2022 under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 granting pendente lite maintenance to the answering opposite party has been sought to be executed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the answering opposite party at the very outset has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the submission that the order impugned being not interlocutory in nature, an appeal under section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 only is maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier also preferred First Appeal No.135 of 2022 which, vide order dated 21st December, 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeal. It is further submitted that by means of order dated 06th September, 2022 passed under section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, direction had been issued for payment of a lumpsum amount of Rs.25,000/- and for payment of Rs.5,000/- per month to the answering opposite party and since by means of impugned order, the said directions have been executed, the same amounts to an order having the trappings of finality and therefore does not amount to interlocutory order.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. Principal Judge , Family Court and 2 ors. to buttress his submissions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party with the submission that in terms of section 18 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, the mode of execution of decrees and orders passed by the Family Court have been clearly indicated wherein execution can take place only in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure but the impugned order has been passed in proceedings under section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 which is without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that since there is continuing cause of action accruing every month to answering opposite party, the same is of interlocutory nature and therefore an appeal under section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 is barred.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that by means of order dated 06th September, 2022, pendente lite maintenance was awarded under section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 whereby direction had been issued for a one time payment of Rs.25,000/- to the answering opposite party with continuing payment of Rs.5,000/- per month to her. By means of impugned order, the said direction issued earlier by the Family Court have been implemented with a specific direction to the employer of petitioner to deduct Rs.25,000/- from petitioner's salary as a one time measure and for deduction of Rs.5,000/- per month from his salary to be deposited with the Court.

7. With regard to an order passed by the Family Court being interlocutory or having been trappings of finality, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Mishra (supra) relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kiran