Dhani Ram vs Smt. Sushila Devi

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a husband''s appeal against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur staying the proceedings in -a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of the wife''s application u/s 24 of the Act.

The husband, Dhani Ram, filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the petition, the wife applied for maintenance and litigation expenses pendente lite u/s 24 of the Act. While that application was pending, she applied for stay of the proceedings in the divorce petition. On July 15, 1971 the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur made an order accordingly. The husband appeals.

In my opinion this appeal is not maintainable. In a recent case; Smt. Taranjit Kohli v. Gurbaksh Singh Kohli ILR (1975) Him 663 , a Division Bench of this Court laid down that the decree and orders mentioned in Section 28 of the. Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for appeals, are the decrees and orders specifically referred to by the Act itself, such as a decree for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9, a decree for judicial separation u/s 10, a decree of divorce u/s 13, orders made for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings u/s 24, and for permanent alimony and maintenance u/s 25. Certain other orders, it was held, were also appealable. Those are orders made under the CPC by virtue of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Those orders are appealable if they have been made appealable expressly under the Code itself. nO other order made in the course of trying a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is appealable. The order impugned in this appeal is an order staying the proceedings in the divorce petition until the application u/s 24 of the Act is disposed of. No appeal lies against such an order. I am obliged to Shri R.K. Punshi learned counsel for the appellant, for placing very fairly the relevant case law before me, and I find from those cases that the Calcutta High Court in Anita Karmokar and Another Vs. Birendra Chandra Karmokar, has also come to the view that an application made for stay of further proceedings in a matrimonial action is not an appealable order under the Hindu Marriage Act.

In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is rejected. As the respondent has not entered appearance, there is no order as to costs.