TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a husband's petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. 25 of 1955) for judicial separation, the wife made an application under Section 24 for maintenance and expenses for litigation pendente lite. This application was granted by the trial Court on the 23rd of December, 1959. He allowed Rs. 80/- p. m. as maintenance and Rs. 200/- for litigation expenses. Against this decision, the Present appeal has been preferred by the husband.

(2.) MR. L. D. Kaushal, who appears for the respondent-wife, raises a Preliminary objection that the order under Section 24 is not appealable. Section 28 of the Act which deals with appeals is in these terms :

(3.) MR. Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellant, however, draws my attention to the decisions of the Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh High Courts respectively in Smt. Sobhana Sen v. Amar Kanta AIR 1959 Cal 455 and Rukhmanibai v. Kishan Lal Ramlal, AIR 1959 Madh Pra 187 wherein an order under Section 24 of the Act has been held to be appealable. I am inclined to follow the view of the Calcutta and the Madhya Pradesh High Courts in preference to the view propounded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. If I accept the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the provision of appeal in Section 28 of the Act becomes wholly meaningless, for no appeal against an order would be competent and this will lead to far-reaching consequences. The language of the section is somewhat defective, but the intention seems to be clear that an appeal against the orders under the Act was sought to be provided for, I Would, therefore, repel the preliminary objection.