IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (MS) 531 of 2012 Smt. Mrinal Dimari Kukreti ….Petitioner Versus Capt. Mayank Kukreti ….Respondent Present : Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged an order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun whereby the application moved by the petitioner (wife) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before this Court a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Rahul Samrat Tandon v. Smt. Neeru Tandon reported in 2010 (2) U.D., 4, where it has been held that an appeal lies against an order passed by the court below under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore the writ petition has been wrongly filed. 4. Considered the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Operative portion of the said judgment reads thus : “17. The present appeal has been filed by the husband challenging the order of 2 maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, yet we are concerned with the larger impact of a judgment in such cases, where primarily the issue of maintenance is crucial to a party to a litigation. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, referred above, after discussing all the relevant law, including the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent came to the conclusion that an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act of 1984 is maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. We are in complete agreement with the observations of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, and we feel that it is necessary that a broad meaning to the word “judgment” must be assigned and therefore, we hold that the impugned order dated 20.3.2010 was in the nature of a “judgment” and the instant Special Appeal preferred by the appellant is maintainable, under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.” 5. In view of the above, since an appeal lies against an order passed by the court below under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.4.2012 Avneet