IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act are not maintainable against interlocutory orders that do not affect substantial rights.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. M. Amarnath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – husband & father under Section - 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act, 1984’) challenging the order dated 18.04.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.116 of 2022 in M.C. No.148 of 2019 passed by learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

3. The respondents - wife and daughter filed M.C. No.148 of 2019 claiming maintenance against the appellant - husband and father. During pendency of the said M.C., the respondents herein have also filed an Interlocutory Application vide Crl.M.P. No.116 of 2022 under Section - 125 of the Cr.P.C. read with 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act, 1984’) seeking a direction to the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance for their livelihood, food, shelter, education and other expenses. Vide impugned order dated 18.04.2023, the learned Family Court allowed the said petition in part directing the appellant herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of petition payable on or before fifth of every succeeding month until disposal of the M.C. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid within two months from the date of said order. Respondent No.1 shall furnish her bank account details to the appellant herein and to the Court within fifteen (15) days from the date of the said order. Challenging the said order, the appellant – husband preferred the present appeal.

4. While the matter stood thus, learned counsel for the respondents - wife and daughter raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal under Section - 19 (1) 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. 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 -