THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RP-1113-2017
(VISHWA PRATAP SINGH BAIS Vs SMT. REETA BAIS)
2
Gwalior, Dated : 09-11-2017
Shri Arvind Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
The present petition seeks review of final order passed in F.A.No. 196/17
whereby an appeal preferred u/S 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing
the award of maintenance pendente lite by the wife on the ground of
the same being less than the just amount, was allowed to the extent of
enhancing the amount of maintenance pendente lite from Rs. 2500/- to
Rs. 6000/- for the appellant/wife and from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- for
the infant child pending final adjudication of the divorce petition filed by
the review petitioner husband.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner raises solitary ground that in
fact the revisional jurisdiction u/S 19(4) of Family Courts Act was
invoked by the wife for assailing grant of less maintenance pendente lite
and therefore, the scope available to this Court while passing the order
under review was restricted and limited to the extent available to a
revisional court. It is submitted that this Court thus wrongly exercised
appellate powers to interfere in the lawful order passed by the Family
Court of maintenance pendente lite u/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which
was not possible in revisional jurisdiction.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of
admission, this court is of the considered view that no ground for review
is available for the reasons infra.
A bare perusal of the pleadings in F.A. No. 196/17 and also the title (First
Appeal), it appears that the intention of the wife was to agitate the order
of maintenance pendente lite in an appeal u/S 19(1) of Hindu Marriage
Act. The cause title of the first appeal indicates that Section 19 has been
subsequently suffixed by “(4)” written by hand (which is not typed),
therefore, it appears that the same has been interpolated subsequently.
More so, the issue of the non-maintainability of the appeal was though
raised before this court but was rejected by this Court by relying upon
the full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.
Kiram Bala Shrivastava Vs. Jai Prakash Shrivastava reported in
2005 (23) LCD page 1 that the nature and colour of an order u/s 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act assumes finality and therefore, it is akin to
“judgment”.
However, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any objection
that revision only would lie u/S 19 (4) of Hindi Marriage Act against an
order u/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, was ever raised or argued.
In fact the First Appeal No. 196/17 was filed as an appeal, was opposed
and argued as an appeal and was also therefore in as natural
consequence, decided as an appeal by this Court.
The ground raised in this review petition that it was actually a revision
which was filed by the wife, apparently is an afterthought merely to
create a ground for arguing this review petition.
From the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that there is
no palpable error on the face of the record. The order under review has
been passed by consciously taking into account all the contentions
(factual and legal) raised by the rival parties.
The view taken may be erroneous but that by itself cannot be a good
ground for review.
Consequently, the present review petition stands dismissed sans cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
