RAMAVTAR VERMA Vs. CHINTAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He is heard on the maintainability of the revision.

(2.) By the impugned order Second Additional District Judge, Mhow. in Civil Suit No. 17/2002 (Smt. Chintamani v. Ravtar Verma) has allowed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short), for maintenance pendente lite and expenses for proceedings. Smt. Chintamani (N. A. No. 1) had applied for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. The question to be decided is whether a" revision against such order is maintainable in view of amended proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) as inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1990, which came into force on 1-7-2002 which reads as follows :-

(3.) Thus, no revision lies under amended proviso of the code against interlocutory orders. Test of order being 'interlocutor)'' has been 'if it had been made in favour of the party, applying for the revision, would have finally decided the suit or other proceedings' or in other words if the order granting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings is set aside would the suit or proceedings pending before the Trial Court be finally disposed of. In Surajmal v. Sunderlal (2003 (2) M.P.L.J. 408 a Division Bench of this High Court has interpreted the above proviso and has held that now this power of revision can not be exercised unless the order is one if made in favour of the petitioner would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings'. It is noteworthy that the order granting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings is short lived, which is co-terminus with the matrimonial proceedings. Right to get maintenance pendente lite or litigation expenses, arises from the start of proceeding and ends with the proceeding, under the Act. Such order does not survive after the proceeding terminates. It is true that a revision in Hiramani Shukla (Smt.) v. Ravindra Shukla (1998) 2 MPWN 44, Kaliben Kalabhai Desai v. Alabhai Karamshibhai Desai (2001) 1 DMC 295 against an order granting maintenance and litigation expenses was held permissible yet both of these had been pre-amend-ment cases. It is true that a revision in Keshavrao v. Tihalibai (2003) 1 MPHT (NOC) 5 against an order passed under Sections 23(2) and 24 of the Act was entertained by a single Judge even after amendment, but in that case no question as to the applicability of amended proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was raised and the plaint remained sub silentio. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon Hanuman Datt v. State (2002) 4 MPLJ 354 : (AIR 2003 Madh-Pra 190) and has argued that the order granting maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses is an order of moment and great importance incurring financial liability to the applicant and thus revision would be competent, but that line of reasoning has been expressly overruled by Surajmal v. Sunderlal (cited supra).