Interim Maintenance Order U/S 24 Hindu Marriage Act Not Interlocutory, Appealable U/S 19 Family Courts Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that pendente lite maintenance passed by Family Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is amenable to an appeal before High Court under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act.

For context as per Section 19(1) of the Family Court, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court. Section 19(5) states, "Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgement order or decree of a Family Court."

While deciding that order of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is a "judgement", a division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Sumeet Goel said, "There cannot be any doubt that such order decides the right of the spouse to get maintenance and expenses of the proceedings till the pendency of any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it finally disposes of the issue of maintenance and expenses."

The decision rendered by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not an interlocutory order and rather it is a 'judgment' which is amenable to appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Court opined.

In a batch appeals the order of maintenance pendente lite passed under Section 24 of the HMA on the ground that the order of maintenance amount granted by the Family Court is either inadequate or excessive, was challenged. In all these appeals though the 'facts in issue are different, yet the preliminary issue regarding the legal recourse available under the law to the aggrieved party against the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was common.

Before considering the merit of the case, the Court considered the preliminary issue common to the appeals, "Whether an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting pendente lite maintenance and expenses of proceedings, is amenable to an appeal before this Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984?"

Reliance was placed upon Allahabad's High Court decision in Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava (2005), where the full bench held that, "...In other words, the Apex Court ruled that order or interlocutory orders possessing the characteristics and trappings of finality or affecting valuable rights of the party or deciding important aspects of the trial in main or in a ancillary proceedings, will be "judgment"."

The Court also referred to Apex Court's decision in in Shah Babulal Khimii vs. Jaya Ben D Kania, (1981) in which it was held, "That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the Suit itself or in a part of the proceedings."

"A decision of the Family Court on the application under Section 24 of the Act involves adjudication and determination of the right of the parties conclusively. In other words denial of the pendente lite maintenance and expenses of proceedings would seriously prejudice the rights of the applicant, who has no independent income sufficient for his or her maintenance and to contest the proceedings. On the other hand inability to pay pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings by the spouse having no independent income, would cause serious prejudice and result in severe civil consequences," the Court opined.

Thus decision of the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act 1984 conclusively decides the right of the parties regarding pendente lite maintenance and expenses of proceedings, it added.

In light of the above the Court decided that a "decision rendered by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not an interlocutory order and rather it is a 'judgment' which is amenable to appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984." 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 30

Title: XXX v. XXX

FAO-5930-2023 (O&M)