Dr. Y. Ajit Vikram vs Dr. S. Shilpika
2025 Latest Caselaw 2813 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr. Y. Ajit Vikram vs Dr. S. Shilpika on 5 March, 2025

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

             FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.201 OF 2024

Mr. Lohith Konda, learned counsel representing Chandrasen Law Offices for the
appellant.


JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

This is the third opportunity given to learned counsel

appearing for the appellant to make good the case for an Appeal

under section 19(1) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 (the 1984 Act).

2. Admittedly, the Appeal arises out of a docket order dated

30.08.2023 dismissing I.A.No.207 of 2022 for restoring O.P.No.114

of 2017 filed by the appellant.

3. O.P.No.114 of 2017 was filed by the appellant for dissolution of

marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section

13(1)(ia) & (ib) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the 1955 Act).

4. We had indicated to counsel by an earlier order that we would

like to hear counsel on the maintainability of the Appeal in view of

the bar contained in section 19(1) of the 1984 Act against filing of

Appeals from an interlocutory order.

5. There is no dispute that the impugned docket order in the

present Appeal is an interlocutory order since the Family Court

refused to restore O.P.No.114 of 2017 and dismissed I.A.No.207 of

2022 filed by the appellant for the restoration of O.P.No.114 of 2017.

I.A.No.207 of 2022 was filed under Order IX Rule 9 of The Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

6. Apart from the question with regard to the maintainability of

the present Appeal in view of section 19(1) of the 1984 Act, which

has not been satisfactorily answered on behalf of the appellant, we

note certain significant facts from the impugned docket order itself.

These facts came to light on perusing the docket order.

7. It appears that the appellant's F.C.O.P. had been dismissed

earlier for default on 22.06.2019. The order of dismissal was set

aside by I.A. filed by the appellant on 07.10.2021. The I.A. was

numbered as I.A.No.822 of 2019.

8. The Trial Court records that even after restoration of the

F.C.O.P., the appellant remained absent on each and every date of

hearing i.e., on 17.11.2021 and 18.12.2021. The Court further

records that the matter was adjourned from 29.01.2022 to

09.02.2022 and 14.02.2022. The appellant was absent on

14.02.2022 and there was no representation on the appellant's

behalf. Not only this, the Trial Court also records that the F.C.O.P is

of 2017 i.e., one of the older cases and that the docket proceedings

would show that the appellant was continuously called absent on

every date of hearing since the registration of the case. The Trial

Court proceeded to dismiss I.A.No.207 of 2022 on the ground of the

aforesaid reasons.

9. Even in the present proceedings, we do not find any diligence

on the part of the appellant in even caring to include the order

dismissing O.P.No.114 of 2017 pursuant to which the appellant filed

I.A.No.207 of 2022. There is absolutely no case for interference.

Even otherwise, the sequence of events, i.e., the dismissal of the

appellant's F.C.O.P. on two occasions i.e., on 22.06.2019 and

thereafter on 14.02.2022 cannot be construed as any order save and

except purely an interlocutory order which comes within the bar of

section 19(1) of the 1984 Act.

10. It is also relevant to point out Order XLIII Rule 1 (c) of The

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for an Appeal against

the rejection of an Application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC.

Hence, the appellant is not without a remedy and can certainly take

steps before the appropriate Forum. The Family Court Appeal is

neither maintainable nor warrants any interference of the impugned

docket order.