NEELAM KUMARI SINHA Vs. SHREE PRASHANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 19.12.2009 passed in Divorce Case No. 15. of 2005, whereby the court below had allowed ad interim maintenance of Rs. 4500/ - per month in favour of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/ - had also been allowed, however, the petitioner (wife) is dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance fixed as aforesaid.

(2.) THE office has raised an objection that in view of Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, this Civil Revision is not maintainable, however, it has also pointed that in view of the order dated 23.2.2010, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 654 of 2009, a Misc. Appeal would be the proper remedy under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of maintainability of this Civil Revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the first instance made an endeavour to impress upon the Court that this Civil Revision would be maintainable. However, in view of the decision of this Court dated 25.1.2010 rendered in Civil Revision No. 1229 of 2009, placing reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench rendered in Jagdish Prasad Chouhan V/s. Bhuneshwar Chouhan and Another, 2009 (3) PLJR 931, learned counsel submitted that he does not want to contest the Stamp Report but it was urged that as per the report of Office, liberty should be granted to the petitioner to convert this Civil Revision into a Misc. Appeal in view of the order dated 23.2.2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 654 of 2009 (Anand Kumar Thakur V/s. Madhuri Kumari). Aforesaid appeal was placed before a Division Bench alongwith following Stamp Report: - "xxxxxxxx. The present impugned order relates to prayer for grant of interim maintenance and litigation cost and, thus, it does not appear to be appealable u/s 19(1) of the Family Court Act. However, the present report as M.A. is being made in view of the order of Hon 'ble Court dated 14.5.09 passed in C.R. No. 636/09 (Annexure -4) that the matter in question should be treated as a separate proceeding, and that petition has now been disposed of. xxxxxxxx."