RAHUL SAMRAT TANDON Vs. NEERU TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984) against an order dated 20-3-2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 123 of 2008, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), whereby an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been ordered to be given to the wife of the appellant under Section 24 of 1955 Act as maintenance pendente lite proceeding under Section 13 of 1955 Act, instituted by the husband, who is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) All the same, before this case could be heard on merits, the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Appeal under Section 19 of 1984 Act. The short contention of the respondent before this Court is that an appeal can be filed under Section 19 of 1984 Act only against a judgment, or an order which is not of an interlocutory nature, but since the order under challenge dated 20-3-2010 has been passed by the Family Court on an application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of 1955 Act for maintenance in pendente lite of the proceeding, the orders passed therein is essentially of an interlocutory nature and since Section 19(1) of 1984 Act specifically bars an appeal against an interlocutory order, the present appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that the present appeal under Section 19(1) of Act, 1984 before this Court is not against an interlocutory order, but it is against a judgment or at least against an order which has all the trappings of a judgment, therefore, it cannot be called an "interlocutory order" and therefore, asserts that the objections raised by the respondent are entirely misconceived.