MONICA SAHU Vs. PURANLAL SARWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29-01-2019, by which, the Family Court has decided the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the matter of grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.

(2.) Facing with objection to maintainability of this appeal in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Mishra vs. Sakshi Mishra1, learned counsel for the appellant argued that notwithstanding order impugned passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it deals with the party's right to get interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings, which itself constitutes determination of right independent of the main proceedings between 1 2017 (3) CGLJ 133 the parties. Therefore, it is argued that the order partakes nature of interim judgment. Relying upon the decision of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kiran Bala Shrivastava vs. Jai Prakash Shrivastava 2 as also of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kavita Vyas vs. Deepak Dave3, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in these two decisions, it has been held that an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in the nature of interim judgment, and therefore, the appeal would lie against such order, under Section 19 of the Family Court Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Mishra (supra), in order to come to the conclusion that the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not in the nature of interim judgment or deciding any issue between the parties, has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others4. He also submits that in addition to the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Mishra (supra), relying upon decision of the Supreme Court, Full Bench decisions of Orrisa High Court in the case of Swarna Prava Tripathy and another v. Dibyasingha Tripathy and another 5 and Patna High Court in the case of Neelam Kumari Sinha vs. Shree Prashant Kumar6 as also Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Hansraj Gupta vs. Payal Sunil Gupta7, have taken the similar view that the appeal against the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will not lie under Section 19 of the Family Court Act.