JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - The short question involved in this first appeal is whether the suit (No. 37 of 1986) pending in the family court under the Guardian and Wards Act, is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC or not. 2. It appears that the appellant filed a suit at Allahabad, being Suit No. 76 of 1986 now pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Allahabad, under the Hindu Marriage Act claiming the following reliefs:- "(a) A decree of judicial separation be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent under Section 10, Hindu Marriage Act. (b) The petitioner be allowed to retain the custody of the minor children under Section 26, Hindu Marriage Act. (c) Orders under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." 3. The said suit was hied on 14-7-1986. Thereafter an other suit was filed by the respondent being suit No. 37 of 1986 on 20-10-1986 under the Guardian and Wards Act making the following prayers :- "Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that the custody of the minor children of the petitioner namely Km. Soma and Master Saurabh may kindly be ordered to be given to the petitioner from the opposite party and necessary direction in this regard may also be issued." 4. The main ground on which the prayer of the appellant had been refused by the Family Court is that proceedings under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be described as proceedings of Regular Suit; hence Section 10 CPC will not be attracted. On arriving at this conclusion, the court below observes that a petition or application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be moved independently. It can only be moved in some proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, and it is petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act which can be termed as a regular suit and not the application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also observed that an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the reliefs prayed thereunder cannot be joined with the main regular suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. We are unable to sustain he observations made by the court below. It is also observed that an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the reliefs prayed thereunder cannot be joined with the main regular suit under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. We are unable to sustain he observations made by the court below. The main question which is to be considered is as to whether the same questions are involved in the two proceedings and whether the two proceedings could provide final relief independently on that question or not. Section 10 CPC clearly provides that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. In proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act pending at Allahabad, where a prayer for making provision for custody of minor children has also been made, the issues involved in this connection are directly and substantially the same. 6. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under :- "Section 26. Custody of children. - In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may, from time to lime, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceedings for obtaining such decree were still pending and the Court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made." 7. A perusal of the above provision clearly shows that an order by way of interim measure can be passed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. At the same time, under the said provision, final orders on the question of custody of minor children can also be passed by providing about it in the decree itself even after a decree is passed, on an application being moved on that behalf. The decree no doubt can also be altered. At the same time, under the said provision, final orders on the question of custody of minor children can also be passed by providing about it in the decree itself even after a decree is passed, on an application being moved on that behalf. The decree no doubt can also be altered. Thus it is clear that two kinds of orders are envisaged under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, one for interim custody and the other making a provision in the decree itself about the custody of children. 8. In this connection it will be relevant to take note of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for appeal from decree and orders. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 provides that orders passed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act are appealable if they are not interim orders, i.e. to say, where a provision is made in the decree or custody of minor children not by way of interim measure, such an order is appealable. There is, therefore, considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that in such circumstances, proceedings under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act partake the character of a suit, even though the application may have to be made in any proceedings. The word 'suit' having not been defined, it is difficult to dress it with technicalities. In this connection, a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to a case reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad 280, Kusum Lata v. Kamta Prasad. In that case, the petitions moved under Sections 9 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act were held to initiate proceedings of a suit and it was pointed out that difference between plaint' and 'petition' loses its significance as requirement of both is of formally drawn up documents for commencement of legal proceedings. Reliance has also been placed upon another case reported in AIR 1984, Himachal Pradesh, 1, Parminder Lal Sarin v. Smt. Suman Lata holding that the word 'decree' in Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act means a final order adjudicating upon the rights of the parties to a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act and an order dismissing the petition under the said Act was still a decree ; therefore, an arrangement made for custody of children was upheld. The point involved in the above case was slightly different, but it is clear that Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act envisages interim orders during pendency of a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act regarding custody of minor children as well as an order making such an arrangement in the decree itself on close of the proceedings. Such an order would be appealable which is evident from Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Once provision is made after close of the proceedings about the custody of minor children in the decree itself or by altering the decree, such an order becomes a part of the decree and thus it has been made appealable under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It amounts to adjudication of the rights of the parties and we feel that if that is so, it is sufficient for the purposes of applicability of Section 10 CPC. As noted earlier, no special or technical meaning has been assigned to the word 'suit' in defining it in the CPC. 9. We also do not find any substance in another objection raised on behalf of the respondent that no prayer for custody of children under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be made in a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The objection is that an application under Section 26 can be made in some proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. Since in the present case, the prayer under Section 26 was made not in any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act but in the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act itself, such a prayer under Section 26 of the Act was not entertain able. We feel that all that is meant by the opening words of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act "In any proceedings under this Act " only means that no order under Section 26 can be passed without there being any other petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. This purpose of the provision is not in any manner negated if a prayer to pass an order under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made along with the petition initiating proceedings of a suit under other provisions of the said Act. This purpose of the provision is not in any manner negated if a prayer to pass an order under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made along with the petition initiating proceedings of a suit under other provisions of the said Act. For then, it cannot be argued or said that the prayer under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been made independent of any other petition or without there being any other proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is true that Section 26 does not envisage any independent proceeding for adjudication on the question of custody of minor children without there being any other dispute and proceeding in connection whereof under the Hindu Marriage Act. It also appears to be quite obvious that if such a course is to be adopted, the only appropriate forum would be under the Hindu Guardian and Wards Act and not by means of an independent and isolated proceedings under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The purpose also appears to be quite obvious that in case where any matrimonial dispute arises and some proceedings are going on in that connection, the question of custody of minor children may also be decided by way of interim measure or finally along with such other proceedings. It is kind of a safeguard against multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties in different courts or in different proceedings relating to matters connected with the main dispute and differences between the parties. We also do not find any bar, that a prayer seeking relief under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be made along with a petition under the other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. After all, provision contained under Section 10 CPC is a matter relating to procedure. It is based on consideration of public policy to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and chance of having contrary orders by different courts competent to try same issue. When such is the position, in our view technicalities would not come in the way if purpose of Section 10 CPC is achievable otherwise. In the present case, we find that the question of custody of minor children is involved in the suit pending at Allahabad as well as in the proceedings pending before the family court at Lucknow under the Hindu Guardian and Wards Act. In the present case, we find that the question of custody of minor children is involved in the suit pending at Allahabad as well as in the proceedings pending before the family court at Lucknow under the Hindu Guardian and Wards Act. Considerations for passing orders in such matters are also the same i.e. to say, the welfare of children is paramount consideration, irrespective of the fact under which Act the power is to be exercised. Wishes of minors have also to be considered. The same parties are thus at issue on the same question in two proceedings or in any case the disputed questions are substantially the same. It will serve no purpose to allow two proceedings to go on in two different courts at two different places for the same dispute regarding custody of minor children. 11. In the note of written arguments filed before the family court, reliance on behalf of the respondent was placed on a case reported in AIR 1974, Delhi, 95, Inderpal Singh Hassanwalia v. M/s Bir Tibetan Woollan Mills and others. We find that this case is not applicable to the present case. It depends upon the provision under which the proceedings are going on and the nature of reliefs which can be claimed and granted under those provisions. 12. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and it is provided that during pendency of Regular Suit No. 76 of 1985 pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Allahabad, the proceedings in Regular Suit No. 37 of 1985 pending before the Family Court at Lucknow shall remain stayed.