The petitioner-husband has approached this Court calling in question the order passed by the Family Court, Belagavi, in Civil Misc. No.2 of 2013 dated 12/03/2015 wherein the Family Court has allowed the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by setting aside its earlier exparte judgment and decree dated 14/06/2012 passed in M.C.No.58 of 2012.

2. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent has appeared through his counsel.

3. Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before the Court that in view of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, any order on facts or law passed by the Family Court is appealable and no other provision is made for invoking the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure under Order IX Rule 13 for restoration of petition already disposed of by the Family Court. He, further, submits that Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is not applicable in view of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Consequently, he also contended that after obtaining a decree for divorce, the petitioner has remarried and therefore, when the order has already been accomplished, the question of restoration of the same does not arise for consideration.

4. Contrary to the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the Family Court has found that the notice issued to the respondent-wife is not properly served. Therefore, considering all the factual aspects, the Family Court has set aside its earlier order dated 14/06/2012 in order to provide an opportunity to the respondent-wife to contest the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has relied upon two rulings of this Court (1) reported in ILR 1988 KARNATAKA 1074 between T.V. SATYANARAYANA vs. SUBBA ARUNA MEENAKSHI wherein it is observed that:

“ As can be seen from Section 19, an appeal lies to the High Court against every Judgment or order made by the Family Court provided it is not an interlocutory order. Sub-Section (4) further provides that no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment or order or decree of a Family Court. If sub-Section(1) had not been there, a revision petition under Section 115 would have been maintainable. But in view of sub-Section(4) even a revision petition cannot be entertained by this Court against an interlocutory order made by the Family Court.”

(2) in the case of C. GOVINDARAJ vs. SMT. PADMINI, REPORTED IN ILR 2009 KARNATAKA 21, wherein at para 5, this court has observed that:

“ On perusal of the said provisions, it is to be noted that though the Hindu Marriage Act is of the year 1955, the Family Courts Act has come into force in the year 1984 and after establishment of the Family Courts, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act an appeal has been provided against the orders or judgment passed by a Family Court. This is a special statute and as such, prevails over general law especially in the light of non obstante clause. It is wellsettled law that in the event of conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law must always prevail. In case of conflict between a special law and a general law, even if both enacted by the same legislative authority, the special law must displace the general law to the extent of inconsistency. The operation of the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant has been approved and applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.”

6. On perusal of the above said rulings and also on perusal of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it is crystal clear that any order passed by the Family Court is appealable before the High Court. Therefore, the general law which is applicable for the purpose of preferring appeals or revisions are specifically excluded by introduction of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The rulings specifically lay down that the special law must displace the general law to the extent of inconsistency, but when there is no inconsistency, then what