JAGDEV SINGH Vs. TEEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is the wife of petitioner. Her application under S. 30 of Hindu Marriage Act, for pendent lite main-tenance allowance has been allowed by the court below. As a result, Petitioner has been asked to pay Rs. 600.00 in all per month. He feels aggrieved and has filed this revision petition. Petitioner assails the order impugn-ed. It is submitted that petitioner is a petty employee working in some Co-operative shop on a monthly salary of Rs. 300.00 and that the trial court has wrongly assessed his income while awarding maintenance.

(2.) Mr. Dogra, LC for respondent, has raised a preliminary objection, challenging the maintainability of the revision petition. He says as the order impugned is appealable, this revision would not lie. He seeks support from AIR 1973 Punj and Har 48. This raises the question - whether or not an order passed under S.30 of the Act is appealable ? The answer will depend upon true interpretation of S. 34, which is reproduced hereunder :- "34. Appeals from decrees and orders,

(3.) The provision leaves no scope for any doubt and makes all decrees passed by the court under the Act appealable. The Act delineates the proceedings wherein decrees are passed and as such no difficulty arises in this area. It, however, restricts the scope of appeal in case of orders. It does not make all types of orders appealable and restricts the right of appeal only against those orders passed in any proceedings under Ss. 31 and 32. S. 31 deals with grant of permanent alimony and maintenance and S. 32 with custody of children. The Section also bars an appeal in respect of an order on the subject of costs. Therefore, an order granting mainten-ance pendente lite and expenses of proceed-ings passed under S. 30 is not covered by S. 34 and does not fall within the issue of appeala-ble orders. Therefore, it is held that an order passed under Section 30 of the Act is not appealable.