N M SUBRAMANIAM Vs. NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order and decretal order dated 31.3.2004 passed in M.C.No.113 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ordering interim maintenance of Rs.500/- per month payable by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife.

(2.) EVEN at the outset, we may say that the above appeal is not maintainable in law, since by the Family Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Central Act 59 of 1991), no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974). For the purpose of convenience, it is apposite to refer Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which reads as follows:-".19. Appeal - (1)...(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any orders passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendments) Act, 1991." (emphasis supplied)

(3.) THE said order of interim maintenance has been passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is settled law that the assessment on evidence is inevitably subjective because we see the evidence with nobody's eyes, but our own. If the assessment of the lower Court is such that it cannot be reasonably sustained, the decision can and should be set aside on appeal. But, where it is not so, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with concurrent factual inference merely because the eyes of the appellate Court are different, vide Sonabalabora V. Jyotirindra Bhatacharaya (2005 (4) SCC 501).