IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that appeals against interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, emphasizing the need for socio-economic considerations.

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Sai Chandra Haas, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mudunuri Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-wife under Section-19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act, 1984’) challenging the order dated 08.05.2023 in I.A. No. 1096 of 2022 in FCOP No. 223 of 2021 passed by learned Judge, Principal Family Court, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

3. The respondent - husband had filed a petition vide FCOP No. 223 of 2021 under Section - 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section - 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act, 1984’) against the appellant-wife seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between them performed on 28.12.2001. During pendency of the said FCOP, the appellant herein-wife has also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 1096 of 2022 under Section - 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a direction to the respondent herein to pay Rs.1,50,000/- per month towards interim maintenance till disposal of the main O.P. to her and her two minor children and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Vide impugned order dated 08.05.2023, the learned Family Court allowed the said petition in part directing the respondent herein to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards rent from the date of eviction, in case the appellant and children are evicted from Army Quarters or in the alternatively provide alternate accommodation to her and children. Challenging the said order, the appellant - wife preferred the present appeal.

4. While the matter stood thus, learned counsel for the respondent-husband raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal under Section-19 of the Act, 1984 on the ground that the impugned order is only an Interlocutory Order and, therefore, the present appeal under Section-19 of the Act, 1984 is not maintainable.

5. Whereas, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that there is trapping of finality in the impugned order. The rights of the appellant are substantially affected by virtue of impugned order. It is not an interlocutory order. Though it is an intermediary order, it attained finality and, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.

6. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that a similar issue fell for consideration before a Full Bench of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava, MANU/UP/2771/2004. In the said case, husband filed a suit vide O.S. No. 77 of 1987 against the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a Family Court at Lucknow. Wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 claiming to herself and to her daughter pendent lite maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- a month and the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. The Family Court therein passed an order directing the husband to pay pendent lite maintenance @ Rs.500/- a month from the date of application and also to pay Rs.2,000/- in lump sum towards expenses of the litigation. Wife has filed an application seeking enhancement of the monthly maintenance. Husband has filed an application under Order XLVII read with 151 of CPC to review the said orders i.e., awarding an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards pendent lite maintenance and enhancement order dated 28.07.2022. The Family Court disposed of the said application vide order dated 07.03.2002 directing the husband to pay pendent lite maintenance in terms of earlier order dated 16.07.2001, but subject to adjustment of amount paid pursuant to the orders passed under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said order, wife preferred an appeal. The said appeal was listed before a Division Bench. Vide order dated 03.04.2002, a Division Bench referring to the matter to the full Bench to answer the following reference: “Whether appeal under Section-19 of the Family Act, 1984, would lie against order passed under Section 24 of the