Allahabad High Court
Chandan Singh vs Pooja Singh on 22 July, 2021
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 32 of 2021
Revisionist :- Chandan Singh
Opposite Party :- Pooja Singh
Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Kumar Rai
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The revisionist is aggrieved by an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Mau dated 26.02.2021, declining a motion under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. in a pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the plaintiff-revisionist. There is an objection put in by the Stamp Reporter that this Civil Revision is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has been heard in opposition to the said objection.
A perusal of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short "the Act of 1984") is quoted in extenso :
(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. -(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law."
(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties 1[or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991].
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. 1[(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.] 2[(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.]" 2[(5)] Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. 2[(6)] An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges. 3[(6)] An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges."
A perusal of Section 19 shows that by virtue of sub-Section (1) of Section 19, an appeal is provided from every judgement and order of the Family Court to this Court on both facts and law, except for an interlocutory order. The said sub-Section opens with a non obstante clause, excluding the application of all contrary provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"). However, by virtue of sub-Section (4), the only order from which a revision may lie to this Court is one made under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Those orders pertain to maintenance proceedings. Sub-Section (5) of Section 19 expressly provides that no appeal or revision shall lie from any judgment or order or decree of a Family Court, except as provided under sub-Sections (1) to (4) of Section 19. Thus, while sub-Section (1) of Section 19 excludes the application of CPC as well as CrPC about remedies available against an order of the Family Court, sub-Section (5) makes the provision of sub-Sections (1) to (4) of Section 19 conclusive. The entire scheme of Section 19 of the Act of 1984 does not at all make any order of the Family Court revisable by this Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
In this view of the matter, this revision is held to be not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
However, this order will not prevent or hinder the revisionist from seeking such remedies against the order impugned, as may be advisable under the law.
Let this order be communicated to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Mau by the Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
I. Batabyal
