Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These miscellaneous appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ( for short 'the Act') are directed against the order dated April 7, 1992 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer. A common question of law has been raised in all these appeals, hence they are disposed of by a common order. The learned Family Court Judge has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. to the minors Anu @ Atul and Manu @ Abhijit in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Appeals No. 431 and 389 have been filed- by the minors seeking to increase the maintenance allowance, while Appeals No. 351 and 366 are filed by the father Ratan Lal challenging the order of interim maintenance allowance.

3. On September 17, 1990, the learned Judge Family Court had granted interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- p.m. to each of the minors from the date of the application. This order was challenged by Ratan Lal before this Court and this Court vide order dated February 27, 1991, sent the case back to the Family Court after setting aside the order of interim maintenance allowance. Thereafter, the learned Judge Family Court has awarded Rs. 250/- p.m. as interim maintenance allowance to the appellants Anu @ Atul and Manu @ Abhijit from the date of application by the impugned order which is under challenge in the appeals. We are not concerned with other part of the order as these appeals are related with the order awarding interim maintenance allowance.

11. An interim order of maintenance allowance in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is interim in nature. By such interim order rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided at all. Object of such relief is to grant maintenance to wife, children or parents, who are unable to maintain themselves and are dependent on the husband, father and son/daughter as the case may be. The primary object is to prevent starvation and vagrancy. It is a measure of social justice and to compel a man to perform his moral and legal obligation, he owes to society in respect of his wife, and minor children so that they are not left beggared and destitute on the scrap heap of the society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy and immorality and crime for their subsistence. Minor children are to be taken care of by the father. It is moral and legal duty of a father to provide sufficient maintenance for his minor children so that they may have proper meals, clothing, and schooling. Therefore, interim order of allowances for their maintenance is necessary and now it is permissible after the authoritative judgment of the Apex Court of the Country in Savitri v. Govind Singh, 1986 DMC 1. We are of the firm view that any order granting interim maintenance allowance is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. The phraseology used in Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act unmistakably provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order which is an interlocutory order. The provisions of appeal under Section 19 of the Act are stringent by incorporating non-obstante clause therein. Even a revision against an interlocutory order is barred under Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom thoughtfully enacted Section 19 with a view to dispose of matrimonial cases as expeditiously as possible. Clear and unambiguous language of Section 19(1) admits no other interpretation. Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for minor children, when faced with this situation, had to concede fairly and rightly so, that the appeals are not maintainable against the impugned order granting interim maintenance allowance. Mr. Ratan Lal Sharma also could not bring any decision to our notice taking a contrary view. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that all the present appeals are not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act as they are directed against an interlocutory order.

12. It is true that against the earlier order granting interim maintenance allowance of the Family Court Judge dated September 17, 1990, an appeal was preferred by Ratan Lal and the same was decided on merits. But the question of maintainability of appeal against an order of interim maintenance allowance does not appear to have been raised before the Division Bench in that appeal, hence this question was not examined while deciding the appeal. Therefore, this fact will not render any assistance to the appellants as the language of Section 19(1) is clear and unambiguous.