1
HIGHCOURTOFMADHYAPRADESH
Misc.PetitionNo.2976/2019
(PoonamVs.Dheeraj)
Indore,Dated:24/06/2019
ShriNipunChoudhary,learnedcounselforthepetitioner.
Heard.
Thismisc.petitionunderSectionArticle227oftheConstitutionhas
beenfiledbythepetitionerchallengingtheorderoftheFamily
Courtdated07/03/2019wherebytheapplicationfiledunder
Section24oftheHinduMarriageActhasbeendecided.
Againstsuchanorder,thepetitionerhasremedyoffilingan
appealunderSection19oftheFamilyCourtAct.
TheDivisionBenchinthematterofPrafullKumarVs.
Smt.AshainFANo.764/2015hasheldasunder:-
“ShriAnilKumarJain,learnedcounselfortheappel-
lant.
ShriBrajeshGarg,learnedcounselforrespondent.
HeardonI.A.No.6480/2016,anapplicationformain-
tainabilityofappealunderSection19(4)5ofSectionFamily
CourtsAct.
2.Brieffactsofthecasearethatagainstanorder
passedbytheFamilyCourt,Ratlamgranting’Pendenti-lite’
maintenance@ofRs.15,000/-permonthtotherespondent
/wifehasbeenchallengedinthisfirstappealfiledbythe
husbandunderSection19(4)oftheSectionFamilyCourtsAct,
1984onthegroundthatajudgmentasitdecidestheques-
tionofmaintainanceduringthependencyofthesuitand,
therefore,thereisfinaladjudicationsofarasthisquestion
isconcernedandanappealliesagainstsuchanorder.
3.Learnedcounselfortheappellantsubmitsthat
‘Pendentilite’maintenanceunderSection24oftheHindu
MarriageAct,1955,raisescontroversyofthesuitand
hencetheappealliesagainstsuchanorder.
4.Tosupporttheaforesaid,hehasdrawnouratten-
tiontofullBenchdecisionofRajeshShuklaV/s.Smt.
Meenaw/o.RajeshShuklaAnr.reportedas2005(2)
M.P.L.J]483,fullBenchdecisionofAllahabadHighCourtin
thecaseofKiranBalaShrivastavaV/s.JaiPrakash
SrivastavareportedasLaws(ALL)-2004-9-141,Division
BenchdecisionofGwaliorBenchofthiscourtinthecaseof
AakanshaShrivastavaV/s.VirendraShrivastavaAnr
2
reportedas2010(3)MPLJ151,DivisionBenchdecisionof
UttarakhandHighCourtinthecaseofRahulSamratTan-
donV/s.Smt.NeeruTandonreportedasAIR2010Ut-
tarakhand67,DivisionBenchdecisionofM.P.HighCourtin
thecaseofRaghvendraSinghChoudharyV/s.Smt.
SeemaBaireportedasAIR1989M.P.259andtothede-
cisionoftheRajasthanHighCourtinthecaseofSanjeev
KumarPareekV/s.ShubhLaxmiPareekreportedas
Laws(Raj)-1988-12-13andsubmittedthatanorderpassed
underSection24cannotbetermedasinterlocutoryorder.
Para15and17ofRahulSamratTandonV/s.Smt.Neeru
Tandon(supra)whereintheDivisionBenchofUttarakhand
Highcourthasheldthattheorderfixingmaintenancepen-
dentiliteindivorceproceedingisfinalorderandtherefore,
ajudgment,theorderisappealableunderSection19ofthe
FamilyCourtsActfollowingfullBenchjudgmentofAlla-
habadHighCourtconcludedasfollowsinpara15and17
readsasunder:-
“15.Thiscourtisofaconsideredviewthatanor-
dergrantedbythecourtbelowunderSectionsection24
oftheHindumarriageactfixingmaintenancepen-
denteliteinthedivorceproceedingsisanorder
havingthequalityoffinality.Itmayhavenothing
todowiththeultimateorder,whichmaybe
passedbythecourtinamatterrelatingtoSection
13oftheHinduMarriageAct.Infact,itisasepar-
ateproceedingwithinaproceeding.Hence,the
orderpassedunderSection24ofthe1955Act
cannotsimplybecalledanorderofaninter-
locutorynature,asitisajudgment.
“17.Thepresentappealhasbeenfiledbythe
husbandchallengingtheorderofmaintenance
pendenteliteunderSectionsection24oftheActof1955,
yetweareconcernedwiththelargerimpactofa
judgmentinsuchcases,whereprimarilytheissue
ofmaintenanceiscrucialtoapartytoalitigation.
TheFullBenchofAllahabadHighCourt,referred
above,afterdiscussingalltherelevantlaw,in-
cludingthelawcitedbythelearnedcounselfor
therespondentcametotheconclusionthatan
appealunderSection19(1)oftheActof1984is
maintainableagainstanorderpassedunderSec-
tion24oftheActof1955.Weareincomplete
agreementwiththeobservationsoftheFull
BenchoftheAllahabadHighCourt,andwefeel
thatitisnecessarythatabroadmeaningtothe
word”judgment”mustbeassignedandtherefore
weholdthattheimpugnedorderdated20.3.2010
wasinthenatureofa”judgment”andtheinstant
SpecialAppealpreferredbytheappellantismain-
3
tainable,underSection19(1)oftheSectionFamily
CourtsAct,1984.”
5.Percontra,ShriBrajeshGarg,learnedcounselfor
therespondenthassubmittedthatsuchanorderisainter-
locutoryorderandnoappealwillliesagainstaninter-
locutoryappeal.Tosupportthecontentionhehasplaced
relianceonthedecisionofRajasthanHighCourtinthe
caseofMaheshBhardwajV/s.Smt.SmitaBhardwajre-
portedasAIR1995Rajasthan47,decisionofPatnaHigh
courtinthecaseofUshaKumariV/s.PrincipalJudge,
FamilyCourtOrs.eportedasAIR1998Patna50,de-
cisionofHighcourtofKarnatakainthecaseofT.V.
SatanarayanaV/s.SubbaArunaMeenakshireportedas
Laws(Kar)-1988-2-22,BombayHighcourtdecisioninthe
caseofSunilHansrajGuptaV/s.PayalSunilGupta,re-
portedasAIR1991Bombay423,fullBenchdecisionof
HighcourtofOrissainthecaseofSwarnaPravaTripathy
Anr.V/s.DibyansinghaTripathyAnr.reportedas
AIR1998Orissa173andDivisionBenchdecisionofIndore
BenchinthecaseofArunaChoudharyV/s.Sudhakar
Choudhary,reportedas2004(2)MPLJ]101whereinthe
DivisionBenchhasheldthatunderSection19(5)oftheAct,
theorderofinterimmaintenanceunderSections24andSection25
ofHinduMarriageAct,wouldbetreatedasinterlocutoryor-
der,therefore,againstsuchanorderneitherappealliesnor
revision.Theonlyremedytoanaggrievedpartytosucha
interlocutoryordertochallengethesamebyfilingawritpe-
titionunderSectionArticle227oftheConstitutionofIndia.
6.ThefullBenchofthiscourtinthecaseofRajesh
huklaV/s.Smt.Meenaw/o.RajeshShuklaAnr.(supra)
whereinthequestionwaswhetheragainsttheorderpassed
bytheFamilyCourtinanapplicationunderSection125of
theCodewhileexercisingjurisdictionunderChapterIXof
theCode,revisionundersub-section(4)ofSection19of
theActshouldberegisteredascivilrevisionorcriminalre-
visionorrevisionpetition(Family)?Inthatcaseproceed-
ingsarearisingoutSectionoftheCriminalProcedureCode,1974,
thusessentiallyfinalordersopassedwillberevisableun-
derSection19(4)oftheActofcriminalrevision.Thefull
BenchhasheldthatthesincepowerofJudicialMagistrate
FirstClasshavebeenexercisedbytheFamilyCourtforde-
cidingapplicationunderSection125oftheCode,revision
filedagainstthesaidorderberegisteredascriminalrevi-
sionandheldthatthecorrectlawisnotbeenlaiddownin
thecaseofArunaChoudharyV/s.SudhakarChoudhary
(supra).
7.Ondueconsiderationoftheargumentsofthe
learnedcounselfortheparties,soalsothedecisionofthe
DivisionbenchofthiscourtinthecaseofRaghvendra
4
SinghChoudharyV/s.Smt.SeemaBai(supra)wherein,
theDivisionBenchhasheldthattheorderpassedunder
Section24oftheHinduMarriageActisjudgment,asitde-
cidesthequestionofmaintainabilityduringthependencyof
thesuitandthesameviewhasbeentakenbytheGwalior
BenchinthecaseofAakanshaShrivastavaV/s.Virendra
ShrivastavaAnr(supra),werejectthepreliminaryobjec-
tionraisedbytherespondentregardingmaintainabilityof
appealandheldthattheappealfiledagainsttheorder
passedinaproceedingunderSection24oftheHinduMar-
riageAct,1955cannotbeconsideredasainterlocutoryor-
der.Theorderforinterimmaintenanceaffecttherightsof
thepartiessubstantiallyandthus,itcannotbetreatedasin-
terlocutoryorder.Appealagainstthesaidorderismaintain-
able.
8.Forthesereasons,I.A.No.6480/2016,ishereby
rejected.”
Sincethepetitionerhasaremedyoffilingfirstappeal
againsttheimpugnedorder,therefore,nocaseismadeoutto
entertainthemisc.petitiondirectly.
Themisc.petitionisaccordinglydismissed.However,with
libertytothepetitionertoavailtheremedyofappeal.
Certifiedcopyoftheimpugnedorderbereturnedtocounsel
forthepetitioneronplacingonrecordaphotocopyofthesame.
C.c.asperrules.
(PrakashShrivastava)
Judge
krjoshi
DigitallysignedbyKHEMRAJJOSHI
Date:2019.06.2610:23:16+05’30’
