Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel and Sri S.R. Verma appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the District Judge, Mathura allowing the Civil Revision filed by respondent No. 3 against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim mandamus and litigation expenses. A petition for divorce has been filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner which is registered as Marriage Petition No. 653 of 2002 Shiv Kumar Gautam v. Smt. Puja. The petitioner Smt. Puja filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of interim maintenance and expenses for litigation. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) by an order dated 7.5.2004 allowed the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directed for for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 150/- as expenses for attending the date in the case. Against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) a civil revision has been filed by the respondent No. 3 which revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 27.112.2004. The revisional court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and directed the learned Additional Civil Judge to decide the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh. The revisional court while allowing the revision held that the learned Additional Civil Judge without recording any finding regarding income of the respondent No. 3 has directed for payment of maintenance which judgment is perverse and cannot be sustained.
(3.) One of the questions which have arisen in the writ petition is as to whether the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 against an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure hence the order is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the power of revision after the amendment made in the Code of Civil Procedure with effect from 1st July, 2002 can only be exercised by the High Court and the district court has no jurisdiction to exercise any revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sri Kulshrestha further contended that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act is not the original proceedings hence the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised. Lastly it has been contended that the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Act is only interlocutory order and no revision lie against any interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments, namely, 1980 A.W.C. 45 Smt. Madhvi Sirothia v. Narendra Nath Sirothia ; 1982 A.W.C. 608 Ram Babu v. II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur and Anr.; 2003 A.W.C. 2198 Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. and 2002 (49) A.L.R. 330 Mahesh Chand And Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and Ors.;