1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.338 of 2025 Date of Decision : 15.09.2025 Naresh Kumar …… Petitioner Versus Anita Devi ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 3. Interim maintenance, in the case at hand, had been fixed vide order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the Family Court, Dehra. Feeling aggrieved by the same, a revision had been preferred which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.10.2020. 4. Subsequent to the aforesaid, two application had been preferred by the present petitioner. One seeking modification of the order 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance as upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the other application preferred by the petitioner was with respect to grant of maintenance from his wife. 5. Insofar as the issue of maintainability of the present petition is concerned, since the order sought to be challenged before this Court is an interlocutory order, neither revision nor appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall be maintainable. The view so taken can be supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, passed in CMP No.457 of 2024, titled Mukund Murari Mahto vs. Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi and Hon’ble High Court of Madras, passed in CMP No.18729 of 2023 in CMA No.1914 of 2021, titled S. Menaka vs. K.S.K. Nepolian Socraties along-with connected matters. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, in the case at hand, a consideration on merit insofar as two applications are considered was denied by the Family Court, Dehra solely on the ground that the petitioner, in the case at hand, had failed to deposit the arrears of maintenance, in terms of order dated 06.08.2019. 7. In the case at hand, in pursuance to order dated 02.07.2025, passed by this Court in the present proceedings, entire arrears of maintenance stands deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court. Besides the aforesaid, petitioner assures that till the order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the Family Court, Dehra as upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is in vogue, he shall continue to pay the maintenance in view of the aforesaid order. 3 8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.04.2025 is set aside. On account of the deposit of the arrears of maintenance and the assurance given by the petitioner to this Court that till the order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the Family Court, Dehra as upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is in vogue, he shall continue to pay the maintenance, the two applications, one filed seeking modification of the order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance, as upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the other filed for grant of maintenance from his wife, shall be heard on merits and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Family Court, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on 28.09.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) September 15, 2025 (KS) Judge