Petitioner / Applicant Respondent / Non -App1icant In the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur WP (227) - gQgQ/ / 2011 / mm am“ Smt. Jyoti @ Kiran Poptani, 32 Yrs. W/o Sunil Poptani, H. No. 13, Aishwarya Residency, Telibandha, Raipur CG i Presently : C/o Rajesh Mohan Das Dhamejani, Banshiwala Departmental Stores, Ganj Road, Nawapara (Rajim) Raipur CG Versus Sunil Poptani, 37 Yrs. S/ o Harish Poptani Qtr. No. 30 (A) Mecosha Bagh, Sindhi Colony, PS - Jaripatka Nagpur (Maharashtra) Petition Under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA$PUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BINE SHRI PRA$HANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. W.P. (227) N0. 882 of 201 1‘ PETITIONER Smt, Jyoti @ Kiran Poptani. Versus RESPONDENT Sunil Poptani. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER ( 18I02I2011) Following oral order of the rxCourt was Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. By the impugned order the learned Family Court has allowed the interim maintenance of Rs.3000l. to the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. 1984 provides thus :- “19. Appeal.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and K notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or' in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order. of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law." (2) The impugned order has decided substantial rights of the parties in relation to her entitlement to receive maintenance and the petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that a meager amount of the maintenance has been awarded. (3) ’ in view of the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the matter of a t H ‘ n Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1 977) 4 SCC l 551 and Nasreen Begum vs. The State of Jharkhand and ors. reported i in 2006 Cri. L.J. 326 (DB) this Court is of the considered opinion that the Limpugned order which decides substantive rights of the parties regarding lgrant of quantum of maintenance is not an interlocutory order and thus passed by V‘ 1" the petitioner has an afternative remedy of Wing an appeal under Section ’19(1) of the Family Courts Act. 1984. (4) The instant petition is thus as not mainminabie, the petitioner if she so desires may prefer a duly constituted appeai under subSection (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. (5) Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to counsel for the petitioner on supplying Xerox copy thereof. MM Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge