T. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent Kishanlal had filed an application against the appellant rukmanibai for divorce under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of District Judge Indore. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant Rukmanibai filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and necessary expenses of the proceedings. This application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, indore, on 29-8-1957 on the ground that the advantage of Section 24 of the Act is available only to a petitioner in the main proceedings. Hence this appeal.

( 2 ) SHRI Pande for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. He contends that under Section 28 of the act, an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 24 is not tenable inasmuch as an appeal lies according to his interpretation of the section, against only those orders which are appealable under the Civil Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force. He points out that under the Civil procedure Code only the orders mentioned in Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1, are appealable and an order under Section 24 of the Act is not such an order. ( 3 ) SECTION 28 of the Act runs as follows: "all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced, 'and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force' : provided that there shall be no appeal on the subject of costs only. " the relevant part relating to appeal has been underlined (here into ' ') by me above. These words do not make a correct grammatical reading and it is obvious that there has been some omission by inadvertence. The corresponding section in the Indian Divorce Act from which this provision has presumably been taken, is section 55 which rues as follows:

"all decrees and orders made by the Court in any suit or proceeding under this Act shall be enforced and may be appealed from, in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced and may be appealed from, under the laws, rules and orders for the time being in force: provided that there shall be no appeal from a decree of a District Judge for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage; nor from the order of the High Court confirming or refusing to confirm such decree : provided also that there shall be no appeal on the subject of costs only. "

It seems that the words 'may be appealed from' which appear twice in this section have been inadvertently omitted from the draft of Section 28 of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 28 of the Act has been enacted with the intention of giving a right of appeal. If the right of appeal is to be inferred from the provisions of any other law, the section so far as it relates to appeal would be meaningless and the words underlined would be superfluous. It cannot be accepted that a right of appeal from orders which are passed under specific provisions of the Act should be provided for in any other law. It is therefore natural to find that in the Civil Procedure Code which provides for appeals from orders passed under that Code, there is no mention of any such orders. Looking to the language of the section, it seems to me that the intention is to give a right of appeal in the case of every order passed under the Act and to leave the forum and the procedure of the appeal to be determined by the relevant law for the time being in force. To put it differently, the orders passed under the Act are passed by the District court and to find out the Court to which an appeal would lie, the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or any other law like the Courts Act will have to be referred to; but so far as the right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document