N.M.KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision by Sanjeev Kumar husband is directed against an order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dated November 16, 1987.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner husband filed a petition under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') for granting a decree for nullity of marriage between the parties. The wife Smt. Shubh Laxmi filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses during the pendency of the petition. The Judge Family Court in his order dated November 16, 1987, held that the applicant wife would be entitled to maintenance at rate of Rs. 50/ - p.m. from the date of filing of the application, dated July 4, 1987. The wife has also been allowed expenses of herself and one more person accompanying her of coming to Jaipur and going back to Gangapur City on every date of hearing. The husband aggrieved against the above order has filed the present revision. Mr, Suresh Pareek appearing on behalf of the wife non -petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the present revision is not maintainable. In this regard it was submitted that after an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976, any order passed under Section 24 of the Act is longer appealable under Section 28 of the Act. Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Smt. Laxmi Bai AIR 1977 M P. 271 and Smt. Sushil Malhotra v. Capt. Satya Pal Malhotra 1977 HLR 453 have been cited in support of the above contention. It was further submitted that so far as the Family Courts Act; 1984 is concerned, Section 19 Under Chapter V deals with the provisions of appeal. It has been submitted that under the above provision it has been clearly provided that no appeal shall he against an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court and under Sub -section (4) of Section 19 it has been clearly provided that except as aforesaid no appeal or revision shall He to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. It was thus contended that neither any appeal nor revision against the order of the Family Court passed under Section 24 of the Act was maintainable in the High Court.
(3.) MR . R.K. Pareek learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 24 of the Act was not interlocutory order and as such every order passed by the Family Court, which was not interlocutory in nature, is appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.;