Such orders of interim maintenance can be challenged only through criminal revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, a bench of Justices M Sundar and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi said in a March 21 judgment
- News
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law Firms
- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
Interim maintenance orders not appealable under Hindu Marriage Act, Family Courts Act: Madras High Court
Such orders of interim maintenance can be challenged only through criminal revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, a bench of Justices M Sundar and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi said.
Madras High Court
Published on:
26 Mar 2024, 10:22 am
4 min read
The Madras High Court recently ruled that interim or pendente lite orders of maintenance passed by a family court are not amenable to an appeal before the High Court either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage (HM) Act or under Section 19 of the Family Courts (FC) Act.
Such orders of interim maintenance can be challenged only through criminal revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, a bench of Justices M Sundar and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi said in a March 21 judgment.
Justices M Sundar, K Govindarajan Thilakavadi
The High Court held that interim orders made by family courts regarding the payment of expenses of proceedings and monthly support during the proceedings were “interlocutory orders.” Therefore, they cannot be challenged under Section 19 of FC Act or under Section 28 of HM Act, it said.
In this regard, the Court pointed out that sub section (1) of Section 19 of FC Act makes it clear that for an appeal to come within its perimeter, the order against which the appeal is made should not be an interlocutory order.
“As regards Section 28 of HM Act, appeal lies against decree (Section 2(2) of ‘the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)’ [hereinafter ‘CPC’ for the sake of convenience]) and not against an order (Section 2(14) of CPC) except orders under Sections 25 and 26 of HM Act and that also if such orders are not interim orders,” the High Court added.
The Court was hearing two appeals filed by a husband and his estranged wife, who were opposing parties.
The husband challenged an interim order awarding maintenance to his wife to cover monthly expenses and litigation costs while their divorce proceedings remained pending before a family court in Erode. On the other hand, the wife challenged the same order on the ground that she was entitled to an enhanced amount.
Both husband and wife had filed civil miscellaneous applications (CMA) under Section 19 of the FC Act.
During the proceedings, however, the lawyers for both sides and the Court realised that there existed contradictory judgements from several High Courts on the maintainability of such CMAs. Even the Supreme Court was yet to provide a clear answer on this aspect, it was noted.
The High Court, therefore, tagged a batch of similar matters together and formulated the following question:
“Whether statutory appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act are maintainable as against impugned orders owing to the expression ‘….not being an interlocutory order….’ in subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?”
The Court also appointed an amicus curiae to assist it in answering this question.
During subsequent hearings, the Court realised that it also needed to examine if a statutory appeal under Section 28 of HM Act would lie against an order of interim maintenance or order for pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of HM Act.
The crux of such exercise, the Court said, was to examine the “Desideratum (meaning, the need for something) of the expression ‘not being an interlocutory order’ in Sub section (1) of Section 19 of The Family Courts Act,1984.”
The Court ultimately came to the decision that words and expressions used in the FC Act but not defined in the FC Act will have the same meaning assigned to the corresponding terms in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
“This is vide section 2(e) of FC Act. Therefore, terms ‘judgment’, ‘order’ and ‘decree’ occurring in Section 19(1) of FC Act and which have not been defined in FC Act have to necessarily be given the meaning as in Section 2(9), 2(14) and 2(2) of CPC respectively,” the High Court explained.
The Court proceeded to conclude that interim or pendente lite orders were interlocutory orders. As such, it ruled that interim orders passed under the HM Act would not be appealable under the HM Act or the Family Courts Act.
“Against an order of interim maintenance / pendente lite maintenance made under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, a appeal will not lie either under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of Family Courts Act,” the High Court said.
The Court, however, clarified that such interim orders could be challenged before the High Court by filing a revision plea under Article 227 (power of superintendence of High Courts over courts) of the Constitution of India.
“A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will lie to this Court against an order of interim maintenance / pendente lite maintenance made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act irrespective of whether it is made by a regular civil court or a Family Court; As an order of interim maintenance / pendente lite maintenance made under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only for a period of time, it can be reviewed / varied and it is an interlocutory order,” the Court held.
Senior Advocates N Jothi, AK Kumarasamy, and T Murugamanickam, and advocates G Mohana Krishnan, S Kaithamalai Kumaran, Zeenath Begum, C Jagadish, R Marudhachalamurthy, AR Suresh, CD Johnson, T Ramachandran, S Kanmani Annamalai, M Marudhachalamurthy, K Govi Ganesan, S Lokesh, K Selvakumar, V Pavan Kumar, K Sumathi, SP Arthi, V Santhakumaresan, S Mohan, Sushanth Malligeswaran, R Rajavelavan, N Ramesh, and V Logesh, KB Vivekanandhan, S Vijayakumar, N Manokaran, P Senthilvel, D Ravindranathan, and K Selva Kumar appeared in the matter.
Advocate Sharath Chandran was the amicus curiae in the matter.
[Read Judgment]
Attachment
S Menaka vs KSK Nepolian Socraties.pdf
Kerala High Court initiates suo motu case after 2-year-old allegedly killed by father
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that the fact that such an incident occurred in Kerala was shocking. He recalled that a similar case had been reported in Thodupuzha a few years ago.
Kerala High Court, girl child
Published on:
26 Mar 2024, 11:59 am
2 min read
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday initiated suo motu proceedings after a 2-year-old child was assaulted and killed by her father.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that the fact that such an incident occurred in Kerala was shocking. He recalled that a similar case had been reported in Thodupuzha a few years ago.
“The factum of such an event happening in our state shocks our conscience and certainly must be an eye-opener,” the Court said while initiating a suo motu case based on news reports about the incident.
The Court noted that according to the reports, complaints had been made previously as well regarding violent incidents in the house of the child but they were not taken seriously by the police.
The Court, therefore, deemed it fit to act under the parens patriae jurisdiction and initiated a suo motu case to formulate a protocol so that authorities can intervene before matters get dire.
“When children are involved and they are the victims of any such violence I am certain that this court is enjoined to act under the parents patriae jurisdiction not withstanding whether the perpetrator is the father or any other near relative. This court cannot ignore the cries of the young child who must have suffered immeasurably when being attacked particularly if the news reporting is accurate that he has suffered extensive damage to his ribs and to his internal organs. This pains this court indescribably. I am therefore of the firm view that there should be some protocol so that the police is in a position to intervene when any such incident is brought to light. For this purpose, I propose a suo motu action and I propose that the respondents be the State Police Chief, the Superintendent of Police Malappuram and the concerned Station House Officer,” the Court said in its order.
The Registry was consequently directed to obtain formal orders from the Chief Justice and list the matter as a suo motu writ petition next week.
According to Asianet News, the father of the two-year-old girl, one Muhammad Faiz, was arrested last night. The child’s relatives were allegedly present at the time when Faiz beat his child.
The mother of the child alleged that Faiz had beaten and killed her daughter. When Faiz took the child to the hospital, he allegely said that she had choked on food the previous day.
The report states that the the cause of death will be established only after the post-mortem examination is completed.
Senior Advocate MC Bhandare launches memoirs titled The Arc of Memory
The foreword of Bhandare’s book was penned by another legal stalwart, the late jurist Fali S Nariman.
The Arc of Memory
Published on:
26 Mar 2024, 11:55 am
2 min read
Former Congress politician, Governor of Odisha and veteran lawyer Murlidhar Chandrakant Bhandare released his memoirs titled The Arc of Memory in the presence of family, friends and members of the legal fraternity at the India International Centre in Delhi on March 20.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, a long-time family friend of the Bhandares, spoke on the occasion.
From left to right: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, Jayant Prasad and MC Bhandare
Divan recollected a conversation he had with Bhandare when he was in Class VI.
“It had such an impact that I still remember his saying, ‘I love people. More the people, more there is to learn and more there is to laugh…’ Murli is essentially a people’s person. And this great affection for people is a thread that runs through the Arc of Memory,” he said.
He also pointed out that the foreword of Bhandare’s book was penned by another legal stalwart, the late jurist Fali S Nariman.
The senior lawyer went on to say,
“Murli’s story has encounters with Dr Ambedkar, political stalwarts — some whom are persona non-grata — great artists, musicians and engaging accounts of the many roles he donned: family man, lawyer, parliamentarian, Governor, UN Human Rights Commissioner, golfer, an early feminist, long before we created the vocabulary to quite rightly elevate these issues.”
Senior Advocates MC Bhandare (seated), Shyam Divan (second from left), family members and friends at launch of Bhandare’s memoir, The Arc of Memory.
Bhandare’s daughter-in-law, journalist Namita Bhandare, was the host for the evening. She revealed how her ‘Baba’ diligently maintained a diary ever since he was young man.
“It is this habit that became the foundation for his memoirs. Through his struggling days as a lawyer in what was then known as Bombay, his marriage to the love of his life, Sunanda, the birth of his children Rahul and Manali, the move to Delhi to practice in the Supreme Court, and the fight to save his wife when she was diagnosed with cancer, he always kept writing,” she said.
Justice Sunanda BhandareFacebook
The Arc of Memory is a labour of love that began as Bhandare’s communication to his late wife and former Delhi High Court judge Justice Sunanda Bhandare, said Namita.
Delhi High Court seeks government’s reply to plea by Centre for Policy Research against FCRA cancellation
CPR’s FCRA registration was cancelled by the Government in January 2024 for alleged violation of the foreign contribution law.
Centre for Policy Research and Delhi HC
Published on:
26 Mar 2024, 11:40 am
2 min read
The Delhi High Court recently issued notice to the Central government on a plea filed by Centre for Policy Research (CPR) challenging government’s decision to cancel the organisations’ registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) [Centre for Policy Research v Union of India].
In an order passed on March 20, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered the government to file a short reply to the plea within two weeks.
The case will be heard next on April 25.
“Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned CGSC [Central government Standing Counsel] appearing on behalf of the respondent [Union of India]. He vehemently opposed the instant appeal and prayed for some time to file a short response to the appeal as well as the accompanying application. Let a short response to the appeal as well as the accompanying application be filed within two weeks from today,” the Court ordered.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
CPR is a think tank which has been involved in research with a focus on India’s 21st-century challenges since the year 1973.
It is headed by political scientist and former Principal of Lady Shri Ram College, Meenakshi Gopinath. Yamini Aiyar is the think-tank’s President and Chief Executive. The other members on its governing board include former foreign secretary Shyam Saran and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan.
CPR’s FCRA license was cancelled in January 2024. FCRA registration is mandatory for an organisation to receive foreign donations.
In February 2023, the CPR’s license was suspended for a period of six months. The suspension was later extended.
Earlier, the government had also suspended the tax exemption status of the NGO. However, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to CPR in that case. The High Court also stayed the income tax reassessment proceedings against the NGO.
Troubles began for the non-profit soon after it was surveyed by the Income Tax department in September last year. Following the survey, IT reassessment proceedings started against the NGO, its FCRA license was suspended, and it subsequently lost its tax exemption status as well.
The government authorities have alleged that CPR was involved in the Hasdeo movement against coal mining in the Chhattisgarh forests and that it used some of the funds received for filing litigation and complaints rather than for research.
CPR, however, denied the allegations and said that it is paying the price for dissent.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar along with advocates Shashwat Goel, Palak Vashisth, Isha Ray and Gyanendra Singh appeared for Centre for Policy Research.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Mukul Singh appeared for the Union of India.
[Read Order]
Attachment
Centre for Policy Research v Union of India.pdf
Don’t take “rubber stamp” cognizance of final reports filed by police: Madras High Court to judicial officers
In all cases where district courts take cognisance of such reports mechanically, the judge concerned will have to explain such action to the High Court.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, Madras High Court
Published on:
26 Mar 2024, 10:05 am
1 min read
The Madras High Court recently cautioned district courts against taking “rubber stamp cognizance” of chargesheets or final reports filed by the police in criminal cases.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that judicial officers must not accept such reports without first applying their minds.
The Court also said that if it came across any instances in the future where district courts had taken cognizance of such reports mechanically, the judge concerned will have to explain his or her action to the High Court.
“It is made clear that going forward, if cognizance is taken through a rubber stamp cognizance order, this Court will be forced to call for explanation. This is in view of the fact that such rubber stamp cognizance order is in violation of the order passed by the Apex Court and followed by this Court,” the order stated.
Justice Venkatesh further directed the High Court Registry to circulate a copy of his order all the principal district judges across Tamil Nadu and to instruct the “entire district judiciary” to take such cognizance only after “proper application of mind.”
[Read Order]
Attachment
Sabaritha vs Sub Inspector.pdf
Follow Us
- News⌄
- Interviews⌄
- Columns⌄
- Others⌄
- Law Firms⌄
