( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the appellant/husband under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the order granting pendente lite maintenance @ Rs. 250/- p. m. to the respondent/wife by the learned single Judge u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in First Appeal No. 31/87.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition for divorce u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur. The respondent moved an application u/s. 24 of the Act in that petition for grant of maintenance pendente lite. The trial Court, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, granted maintenance @ Rs. 100/- p. m. from the date of the Order. The decree for divorce was granted to the appellant by the trial Court and aggrieved by the decree, the respondent has preferred F. A. No. 31/87, which is pending in this court. She also moved an application u/s. 24 of the Act for payment of pendente lite maintenance @rs. 100/- p. m. It appears that the application was not opposed by the appellant, but the learned single Judge granted maintenance @ Rs. 250 p. m. besides Rs. 500/- towards the litigation expenses.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant the respondent having herself claimed maintenance @ Rs. 100/- p. m. the learned single Judge could not have awarded the maintenance at the higher rate of Rs. 250/- p. m. The amount awarded is without any material on record and is not rational to the income of the appellant. According to the respondent this letters patent appeal is not maintainable against the interlocutory Order for that purpose she relied on the decisions of this court in Kunwarji Sonkar v. Nirmalchand Sonkar, L. P. A. No. 151 of 1985, D/-17-1-1986 and Chhunilal v. Agrawal and Co. , 1987 MPLJ 165. In the first case this court by relying on a Full Bench decision of this court in Manohar v. Baliram, AIR 1952 Nag 357 and Punjab Soap Works v. H. Liver Ltd. , 1962 MPLJ 240 held that no letters patent appeal lies against the interlocutory matter since it does not amount to a Judgment. Relying on the Judgment in the second case, this Court held that no letters patent appeal lies against the interlocutory order passed by a single Judge in appeal but letters patent appeal is maintainable against such Order passed in original proceedings by the single Judge.

( 4 ) WE are of the view that the two decisions of this court cited above, do not lay down the correct law. In Shanti Kumar v. H. Insurance Co. , AIR 1974 SC 1719 (Para 19), it was held as under : -"in finding out whether the Order is a Judgment within Clause 15 it has to be found out that the Order affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability. The right or liability is to be found out by the Court. The nature of the Order will have to be examined in order to ascertain whether there has been a determination of any right or liability. AIR 1935 Rang 267 ( FB) Manohar v. Baliram case (AIR 1952 Nag 357) (FB) (supra), Overruled. "therefore, it is clear that in the first decision of this Court cited above, this Court wrongly relied on the overruled decision Mahohar v. Baliram case (supra) and came to the conclusion that against interlocutory matters, no letters patent appeal lies. Again in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786, the Supreme Court further held as under : -"an order of the trial Judge refusing to appoint a Receiver or to grant an ad interim injunction is undoubtedly a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent both because O. 43, R. 1 applied to internal appeals in the High Court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a Judgment within the meaning of Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent. "this decision has been distinguished in the aforesaid second decision of this Court by saying that it is essentially on the basis of the provision contained in O. 43, R. 1 read with S. 104, C. P. C. and applies to internal appeals in the High Court against