VIKRAM VAMAN APTE Vs. PRIYANKA VIKRAM APTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Application challenges the order dtd. 3/11/2023 passed below Exh.3 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application no.2400 of 2019, whereby the learned Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay the interim monthly maintenance of Rs.75,000.00 to opponent no.1, Rs.50,000.00 per month each to opponents no.2 and 3, totaling to Rs.1,75,000.00 per month and had directed that the arrears of maintenance be paid within one month from the date of the order.

(2.) The applicant is the husband of opponent no.1 and father of opponents no.2 and 3. Marriage between the applicant and the opponent no.1 took place at Mumbai on 25/12/2010.

(3.) To support the maintainability of the Revision Application, learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani has referred to the provision of Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manojkumar Harilal Joshi v. Truptiben Manojkumar Joshi, 2004 (1) GLH 676 to contend that since the maintenance order substantially affects the rights and liabilities of the parties, it would not be termed as 'interlocutory order'. To explain the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 and the decision in the case of Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137.