D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— The appeal preferred quoting Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the petitioner in M.C. No.872 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Family Judge, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dated 16-1-2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, on an application filed by the respondent-wife therein seeking for pendente lite maintenance in her favour.

2. The learned Judge of the Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as the maintenance payable in favour of the respondent-wife with effect from 1-8-2009 together with one time litigation expenses of

Rs. 5,000/-. The husband-petitioner is in appeal purporting to be under Section 24 of the Act as mentioned above.

3. The matter is listed before the Court today by the registry on the memo filed by learned Counsel for the appellant for conversion. While the said memo is conspicuously absent before us, on a query with the registry, what we are informed is that the memo to that effect had in fact been filed, was available in the registry when a case field was scrutinised by the concerned section; it appears to have misplaced by the Board Branch of the Registry before the papers are sent to the Court hall. Be that as it may, we have looked into the tenability of this appeal stated to be filed under Section 24 of the Act. We find that Section 24 of the Act is not a provision enabling filing of any appeal. Section 24 of the Act reads as under:

“24. Maintenance pendente lite 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”.

4. A statutory right is to be availed of in the manner as provided under the statute. Section 24 of the Act is not a provision enabling filing of any appeal. On the other hand, we find quoting of Section 24 is inappropriate and as the order is passed on an interlocutory application in a pending matter by the learned Judge of the Family Court, the procedure is governed by the Family Courts Act, 1984. In terms of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in respect of orders passed by the Family Court and particularly the Family Court has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to try the matters relating to matrimonial disputes between the parties in a place where the Family Court is established. The appeal provision against the orders of the Judge of the Family Court is wholly in terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. For convenience, we may refer to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which is as under:

“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.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

(4) The