IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.1055 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Sd/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- AMITABEN MARENDRABHAI BATTIWALA Versus NARENDRABHAI BACHUBHAI BATTIWALA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Civil Revision Application No. 1055 of 2001 MR ANMOL SHARON for Applicant No. 1 MS R SRIVIDYA for Applicant No. 1 MR MA KHARADI for Respondent No. 1 MR MM SAIYED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 16/10/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The present Revision Application is filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch on 30.06.2001, below an application Ex.4, in H.M.P. No.81 of 2000, whereby the application moved by the present applicant seeking interim maintaince under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was partly granted. Being aggrived by the said order dated 30.06.2001, the applicant prefers the present application. The impugned order is an interim order and the main petition is still pending before the trial Court. In view of the provision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the present Revision Application is not maintainable and hence, it is rejected. It is, however, open to the applicant to challenge the impugned order before this Court by way of Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. With the above observations, the present Revision Application is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Sd/- [ K.A.PUJ,J ] 'Bhavesh'