GURBAKSH SINGH Vs. TARAN JIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Gurbaksh Singh against the order, dated 9th February, 1977, passed by the District Judge, Mandi, allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (shortly called the Act) made by his wife Smt. Taran Jit for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings consequent to application under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The learned District Judge while allowing the application under Section 24 granted a sum of Rs. 50 (sic-- Rs. 150?) per mensem from August 1972 to February 1975 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 235 per mensem till the date of disposal of the petition under Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) A preliminary point has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the amendment made in the Act by Act No. 68 of 1976. According to him, Section 28 as amended by the Act does not provide for an appeal against the order made under Section 24. This application, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed in September 1972 before coming into force of the amending Act. That application was disposed of earlier by the District Judge on November 4, 1974. The District Judge allowed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 150 pendente lite to the wife and he also allowed an amount of Rs. 200 as costs of the proceedings. Dissatisfied with that order, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act as it then stood. Section 28 as it then stood provided:

(3.) The further question that arises is whether an order under Section 24 is a decree against which an appeal lies. This question whether an order passed in proceedings under Section 24 is an order or a decree came up for consideration before this Court in Brij Lal v. Smt. Maya Devi (1977 Hindu LR 82) and it has been held therein that a proceeding under Section 24 terminates in an order and not a decree. The Act has made clear distinction in its several provisions between an order and a decree. Therefore, in view of this rule laid down by this Court in a similar case it is manifest that the order in proceedings under Section 24 is not a decree but it is an order, which has specifically been omitted from the amended Section 28 so as to entitle the person against whom an order in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act is made to file an appeal against the same.