Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan vs Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11880 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan vs Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) And ... on 29 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189500
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2474 of 2025   
 
   Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Nikhil Chaturvedi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 38
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC by the estranged wife challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023 (Smt. Rakhi Chauhan Vs. Rajkumar & another) whereby the defendant-appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. It appears that a Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014 (Dr. Rajkumar Singh Vs. Rakhi Chauhan) was decreed exparte on 09.04.2015 and for setting aside the above exparte decree, the defendant-wife had filed the above Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023, which has been rejected by the impugned order of the Family Court.

4. It is apparent that the above impugned order is not an interlocutory order because the proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014 are not pending before any court. Similarly, the Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023 has also been disposed by the impugned order. It is also apparent that under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984, 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. Further, as per Section 19(6) of the above Act, an appeal preferred under sub section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting two or more judges.

5. It is apparent that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order which has been passed by the Family Court Firozabad, as such, according to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, an appeal under Section 19 of that Act lies but the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of C.P.C., which is not legally maintainable.

6. In the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he wants to withdraw this appeal for filing it before the appropriate court.

7. In view of the above position of law, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.

8. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

9. Office is directed to return the original documents to the learned counsel for the appellant after keeping a photo copy on record.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

October 29, 2025

Himanshu