RAJKUMARSRIVASTAVA Vs. ANJANA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Misc. Appeal has been filed for setting aside the order dated 2-1-96passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Patna in matrimonial case No. 70 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the trial court ordered for payment of Rs. 750A as interim maintenance to the respondent with effect from the date of the petition and further allowed Rs. 6,000/- as litigation cost in one lump sum besides Rs. 340/- for each trip as cost for conveyance for her each trip from Ranchi to Patna if she personally attends the court along with escort and Rs. 400/- per day for her stay at Patna in connection with the case.

(2.) The Stamp Reporter, in his report, dated 13-2-96 has pointed out that the Misc. Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is against the order dated 2-1-96, by which the learned court has allowed the interim maintenance and cost of litigation only, which is purely an interlocutory order and thus, the remedy seems to lie by way of filing a civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, according to him, the present Misc. appeal does not appear to be maintainable. Accordingly the matter has come up before me under the heading 'for orders' for considering the question of maintainability.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Matrimonial case of Raghvendra Singh Choudhary v. Seema Bai, reported in II (1988) DMC 315, held that the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a judgment as it decides the question of maintenance during the pendency of the suit and therefore, there is final adjudication so far the said question is concerned and an appeal lies against such an order. The Division Bench in the said case also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dinesh v. Usha, reported in A.I.R. 1979 Bom. 173, wherein also it was held that the pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 raises controversy independently of the suit and the decision thereon concludes controversy finally between the parties and as such Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.