- (1.)In this Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the husband assails validity of an order dated 5/03/2001 passed by Sri R. B. Pandey, Judge, Family Court, Agra in Suit No. 446 of 1998 allowing the application dated 3/05/1999 filed by the respondent-wife under Sections 24/26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 commanding the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1200.00 (Rs. 800/- per month for her and Rs. 400.00 per month for their son) for maintenance with effect from the date of her application, besides a lump sum of Rs. 1500.00 towards litigation expenses.
(2.)The office has raised an objection that in view of Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act this appeal is not maintainable.
(3.)Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant, contests the objection aforementioned by submitting that true it is that the impugned order was passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but in view of the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raghvendra Singh Choudhary v. Smt. Seema Bai, AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 259 holding that an appeal will lie against an interlouctory order, if it is a judgment and that the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a judgment as it decides the question of maintenance during the pendency of the suit, therefore, there is a final adjudication.8