JUDGMENT At the stage of preliminary hearing, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The impugned order passed by the trial Court was for granting interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dated 24.11.1994 and the trial Court proceeded with the suit according to law. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that an appeal could lie against an order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Amendment Act No. 68/76 under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case of Radhe Shayam Gupta v. Laxmi Bai (1977 JLJ 354). In that case, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically held : "Section 39 of the Amendment Act No. 68/76 takes away the right of appeal against an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 even in cases which were pending on the date the Amendment Act came into force, hence no appeal lies against such an order under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act." Although, on the same point the Rajasthan High Court, Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court have taken a different view but this High Court in a Division Bench case referred above held that no appeal lies against an order under sect ion 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and I am bound to follow the Division Bench decision of this High Court. The interim order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not fall within section 104 or under order 43 CPC and was therefore not appealable as held in the case of Prithviraj v. Shivprabha (AIR 1960 Born. 315) and Rajpal v. Dharmavati ( AIR 1980 All. 350 ). In the case of Narendra Kumar v. Suraj Mehta (AIR 1982 AP 100), it was held that although no appeal lies against an order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same can be treated as a revision under section 115 of the CPC. Similar view was expressed in the case of Bai Umiyaben v. Ambalal ( AIR 1966 Guj 139 ). Similar view was expressed in the case of Bai Umiyaben v. Ambalal ( AIR 1966 Guj 139 ). Now, it is a settled law in so far as this State is concerned that after the amendment made in section 28(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, no appeal lies against an order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the same can be treated as a revision under section 115 CPC and is to be heard on merits. It is therefore directed that this appeal against an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be heard in appeal and the same is directed to be registered as a revision. After registering this case as revision, the same be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing on merits where the revisions are being heard according to roster.