KIRAN BALA SRIVASTAVA Vs. JAI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHEM Karan, J. Pursuant to the orders dated 3-4-2002 passed by a Division Bench (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant and Hon'ble M. A. Khan, JJ.) of this Court at Lucknow in First Appeal No. 17 of 2002 , Smt. Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava, filed under sub-sec tion (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of. 1984), Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Full Bench to answer: "whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would lie against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of interim main tenance?" Factual Background

(2.) THE respondent Jai Prakash Srivastava filed a petition (Original Suit No. 77/87) against his wife (the appel lant) under Section 13 of the Hindu Mar riage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 19b5) in a Family Court at Lucknow. THE wife moved one applica tion under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming to herself and to her daughter pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80007-a month and litigation expen ses to the tune of Rs. 11, 000/ -. THE learned family Judge passed an order on 16-7-2001 directing the husband to pay pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- a month from the date of application and also to pay Rs. 2000/-in lump sum towards expenses of the litigation.

(3.) WHEN the said appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984 came up before the Division Bench, a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of such an appeal was raised on the basis of two Division Bench decisions of this Court at Al lahabad in Smt. Pratima Sen Gupta v. Sajal Sen Gupta, 1998 SCO 732 : 1998 (16) LCD 346) and Ravi Saran Prasad alias Kishore v. Smt. Rashmi Singh, AIR 2001 Allahabad 227 : 2001 (19) LCD 707. The appellant-wife tried to meet this objection by referring to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Avadhesh Narain Srivastava v. Archna Srivastava, 1990 LLJ 183 : 1990 (8) LCD 66. Finding the conflict in between the decisions in Avadhesh Narain Srivastava's case (supra) on the one hand and in the cases of Ravi Saran Prasad and Pratima Sen Gupta (supra) on the other, their Lordships directed the Registry to place the relevant papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the controversy as to whether appeal lies under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984, against orders under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. Nature and Extent of the conflict in the cases referred to above