RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. SEEMA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant/husband under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the order granting pendente lite maintenance @ Rs. 250/- p.m. to the respondent/wife by the learned single Judge u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in First Appeal No. 31/87.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition for divorce u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur. The respondent moved an application u/s. 24 of the Act in that petition for grant of maintenance pendente lite. The trial Court, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, granted maintenance @ Rs. 100/- p.m. from the date of the Order. The decree for divorce was granted to the appellant by the trial Court and aggrieved by the decree, the respondent has preferred F. A. No. 31/87, which is pending in this court. She also moved an application u/s. 24 of the Act for payment of pendente lite maintenance @Rs.100/- p.m. It appears that the application was not opposed by the appellant, but the learned single Judge granted maintenance @ Rs. 250 p.m. besides Rs. 500/- towards the litigation expenses.

(3.) According to the appellant the respondent having herself claimed maintenance @ Rs.100/- p.m. the learned single Judge could not have awarded the maintenance at the higher rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. The amount awarded is without any material on record and is not rational to the income of the appellant. According to the respondent this letters patent appeal is not maintainable against the interlocutory Order for that purpose she relied on the decisions of this court in Kunwarji Sonkar v. Nirmalchand Sonkar, L.P.A. No. 151 of 1985, D/-17-1-1986 and Chhunilal v. Agrawal and Co., 1987 MPLJ 165. In the first case this court by relying on a Full Bench decision of this court in Manohar v. Baliram, AIR 1952 Nag 357 and Punjab Soap Works v. H. Liver Ltd., 1962 MPLJ 240 held that no letters patent appeal lies against the interlocutory matter since it does not amount to a Judgment. Relying on the Judgment in the second case, this Court held that no letters patent appeal lies against the interlocutory order passed by a single Judge in appeal but letters patent appeal is maintainable against such Order passed in original proceedings by the single Judge.