Madulal Vs. Sarojini Devi

family courts act, 1984 - section 19(1)--order granting interin monthly maintenance allowance--held, it is interlocutory order and no appeal lies against it.;a bare reading of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the family courts act, 1984 shows that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed by a family court. admittedly, the interim order has been passed for monthly maintenance till the final decision of the appeal. the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.;appeal dismessed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....subsequently, he has married again and has 7 children. it is submitted that respondent has her own income from the land and other work that she does.3. it is submitted by shri gandevia, learned counsel that the income of the appellant is rs. 3,000/- per month. it is also submitted that no appeal lies under section 19 of the family courts act, 1984, since the impugned order is an interlocutory order. it is also denied that the respondent has sufficient income to look after herself.4. we have heard both the parties. a bare reading of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the family courts act, 1984 shows that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed by a family court. admittedly, the interim order has been passed for monthly maintenance till the final decision of the appeal. the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. apart from this, even on merits, we do not find any force in the contention raised as the matter is yet to be decided on evidence produced by both the parties in the family court. the appeal is therefore, dismissed.5. we deem it appropriate, as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, that the matter should be disposed of at an early date. shri gandevia, gives out that he will need only two dates to complete his evidence.6. it is, therefore, directed that the matter should be heard and finally disposed of within a period of 4 months of the certified copy of this order produced before the family court. however, if the appellant does not co-operate and the amount of maintenance is not paid, as directed by trial court, and the matter is delayed on this account, he will have to thank himself.the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.