An appeal against an order for interim maintenance under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage (HM) Act cannot be made under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of Family Courts (FC) Act, the Madras High Court held recently.
A bench comprising Justices M Sundar and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that instead challenge to interim maintenance orders passed by either a regular civil court or a family court should be pursued through revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The court clarified that interim maintenance orders concerning expenses and monthly support during proceedings are deemed interlocutory, thus falling outside the purview of appealable orders under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act or Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which are statutory appeals.
The ruling came in cross-appeals filed under Section 19 of the FC Act by a husband and wife contesting an interim maintenance order issued by a family court in Erode, wherein the husband challenged the order’s quantum while the wife sought an enhancement.
During the proceedings, the court observed conflicting judgments across various high courts regarding the maintainability of civil miscellaneous applications (CMA) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Moreover, it was noted that even the Supreme Court is yet to provide a clear answer on this aspect.
Consequently, the division bench consolidated similar matters to address the question of whether statutory appeals under Section 19 of the FC Act and Section 28 of the HM Act are admissible against the order of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HM Act.
Additionally, the court appointed an amicus curiae to provide expert assistance in resolving this matter.
In its deliberations, the court examined the applicability of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act in appeals against orders of interim maintenance or pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. It emphasized the importance of understanding the expression “not being an interlocutory order” in Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.
The court concluded that terms such as “judgment,” “order,” and “decree” in the Family Courts Act should be interpreted in line with the corresponding definitions in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ultimately, the court ruled that interim maintenance orders are interlocutory and therefore not appealable under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Family Courts Act. However, it clarified that such orders could be challenged through revision pleas under Article 227 of the Constitution, regardless of whether they were issued by a regular civil court or a family court.
Comments
0 comment