PRATIMA SEN GUPTA Vs. SAJAL SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the validity of order dated 13.5.1997 passed by the Judge. Family Court. Allahabad in Case No. 216 of 1991 filed by the husband-respondent seeking divorce of the appellant under the provisions of Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. By the impugned order the Judge, Family Courts has directed the husband-respondent to pay in all a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards litigation expenses within seven days therefrom. By another part of the same order, the husband-respondent was directed to pay to the appellant, from the date of the order, a sum of Rs. 400 per month to the appellant by way of interim maintenance. By another part of the same order, the husband-respondent was also directed to pay to the wife-appellant a sum of Rs. 300 each towards interim maintenance to their minor children Prashant Sen Gupta and Pallavi Sen Gupta during the pendency of the case.

(2.) Sri Amit Kumar learned counsel for the husband-respondent raises a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal under Section 19 of the Act submitting that orders impugned are interlocutory and under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act an appeal lies against such decree or orders which are not interlocutory in nature. Learned counsel also referred to Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which the Legislature has permitted appeal against decrees passed under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act alone. He also placed reliance on a learned single Judge decision of this Court in Girish Chandra Srivastava v. Smt. Sudha Srivastava, (1997) 1 U. P. Civil and RCR 471, where a revision preferred against such an order was held to be not maintainable, as well as on Mahesh Bhardwaj v. Smt. Smita Bhardwaj, AIR 1995 Raj 47, in which was also under challenge validity of an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in an appeal which was held to be not maintainable by the Division Bench. He also placed reliance on yet another Division Bench judgment, this time of the Bombay High Court in Sunil Hansraf Gupta v. Payal Sunil Gupta, AIR 1991 Bom 423.

(3.) Mr. R. K. Saxena. learned counsel appearing on behalf of wife-appellant on the other hand contended that the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not an interlocutory order and, therefore, this appeal is maintainable.