MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed under S.19 Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 14/07/1993 along with an application under S. 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
(2.) It has been averred in the said application that the appellant came to know about the said order dated 14/07/1993 as late as on 25/08/1993. It is clearly recited in the order sheet dated 14/07/1993 that on that day an application for exemption from personal attendance was moved on behalf of the appellant Mahesh Bhardwaj by his brother Ajit Kumar Bhardwaj. A certified copy of this application dated 14/07/1993 has also been filed. It is stated in it that the appellant Mahesh Bhardwaj is it the Rajasthan Administrative Service, leave has not been sanctioned to him and as such he was unable to appear before the Court. This shows that the appellant Mahesh Bhardwaj was well aware of the date i. e. 14/07/1993 fixed for the pronouncement of the order. Nothing has been said against the said order sheet reciting the presence of the appellant's brother Ajit Kumar Bhardwaj. A gist of the lengthy order dated 14/07/1993 has duly been given in this order-sheet. It has been observed in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Sriniwas Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249 at p 12 52 para 7, as follows:- "So the Judges' record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else." It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant came to know about the order dated 14/07/1993 for the first-time on 25/08/1993. To say the least, the affidavits of the appellant Mahesh Bhardwaj and his father Surya Narain Bhardwaj are false. On this ground alone, the application moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for the condonation of delay deserves to be rejected.
(3.) The appeal filed against the order dated 14/07/1993 passed under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act is not maintainable. It is well settled law that such an older is an interlocutory order. Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 clearly provides that no appeal will lie against an inter-locutory order. In Vijay Kaur v. Radhey Shyam, (1992) 2 Hindu LR 236, it has been held by us that an order passed under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act is an inter-locutory order and as such no appeal lies under Section 19(1), Family Courts Act. Similar view has been taken in Sunil Hansraj Gupta v. Payal Sunil Gupta, 1991 (2) Hindu Law Reporter 281 (DB) (Bom) (also reported in (1992) 1 Hindu LR 248.;