Ramesh Chauhan vs Braj Lata
2023 Latest Caselaw 24183 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175731
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7345 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chauhan
 
Respondent :- Braj Lata
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bilas Yadav,Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in an appropriate nature quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 as passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by respondent in Divorce Petition No. 1022 of 2022 (Ramesh Chauhan Vs. Smt. Brij Lata Chauhan) under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act with all its consequential effects.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in an appropriate nature directing the Court below not to give effect to the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 as passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by respondent in Divorce Petition No. 1022 of 2022 (Ramesh Chauhan Vs. Smt. Brij Lata Chauhan) under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act in any manner whatsoever."

3. It appears that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Divorce Petition No. 1022 of 2022. In the aforesaid petition, an application was filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the impugned order, the court has directed payment of Rs. 17,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the order, that is, 15.4.2023.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned would be an interlocutory order and thus, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable and no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

5. However, Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned Standing Counsel has referred to a judgment of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kiran Bala Srivastava Vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava reported in 2006 All. C.J. 1936 in which the Full Bench of this Court agreed with the view taken by a Division Bench that since the orders under Section 24 granting pendente lite maintenance is a judgment, so appeal would lie under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 1984.

6. Under the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid decision of a Full Bench by this Court, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Order Date :- 6.9.2023

A. V. Singh

(Jayant Banerji, J.)