Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Chouhan vs Pooja Thakur on 22 June, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
First Appeal No. 241/2021
Sudhir Chouhan
Vs.
Pooja Thakur
Appearance:
Shri Ayur Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
CORAM
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(22.06.2021)
Per Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Heard on the question of maintainability of the appeal.
2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act,
1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Family Court dated
25th January, 2021 deciding the application of the respondent under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. In view of the Full Bench decision dated 11.7.2019 in the
matter of Anup Kumar v. Smt. Reena @ Renu (Civil Revision No.
150/2019), the First Appeal against such an order is not maintainable.
The Full Bench in the matter of Anup Kumar (supra) has held that:
"28. In such circumstances, in case an order under section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not treated to be an interlocutory
order and is held to be appealable under the provisions of
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, then in those areas where
a Family Court has been notified the orders passed under
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, would be appealable
whereas in those areas of the State where a Family Court has
not been notified as is alleged to be the situation in the present
case, the orders passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, would not be appealable in view of the provisions of
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, leading to a situation
where different remedies would be available against the same
kind of orders.
29. In such cases it is the duty of the Courts to harmonize the
provisions of the two Acts to ensure that there is parity and
uniformity in respect of the procedure prescribed by law and,
therefore, we are of the considered opinion that when the
provisions of the two statutes are harmonious construed, no
appeal against an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, can be held to be maintainable under the
provisions of the Family Courts Act.
30. The view taken by us is strengthened by the fact that the
legislature, inspite of making substantial amendment in the
Hindu Marriage Act after 1984, has chosen to retain the
provisions of Section 28 of the Act as it is and has not
amended the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, providing for
an appeal against an order passed under section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
31. When the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, are interpreted keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it
is clear that no appeal against an order passed under section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, can be filed under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act."
4. Having regard to the aforesaid, we hold that the appeal is not
maintainable and accordingly dismiss it; however, with liberty to the
appellant to take recourse to such other remedies as are available in
law.
5. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to counsel for
the appellant on placing on record a photocopy of the same.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
VIVEK
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI
Date: 2021.06.24 10:22:52 +05'30'
