RAVI RANJAN, J.

We have heard the parties and perused the records of this case.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.09.2015, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial Case No.26 of 2012 by which the aforesaid matrimonial case for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

It appears from the order-sheet of the case that the petitioner-appellant had led her evidence in support of her claim and the evidence of the respondent-husband was initially closed as he was not appearing on the date fixed. However, the said order was recalled subsequently on 22.05.2015 upon payment of a cost of Rs.200/-. The matter was again fixed on 16.07.2015. On that day, the opposite party-respondent was present along with his witness. However, on behalf of the petitioner-appellant attendance was filed by her Pairwikar upon which she was directed to remain present on 20.08.2015. On 20.08.2015, the petitioner-appellant did not appear in person and the matter was again posted on 22.09.2015. Thereafter, on the aforesaid date, the case was dismissed for default considering that the appellant did not appear on last several dates. It is recorded that though the opposite party appeared physically, the appellant was absent on three consecutive dates. However, the petitioner-appellant was granted liberty to file miscellaneous case for restoration of maintenance case.

The appellant did not avail that opportunity and has filed appeal against the aforesaid order.

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the provision contained in Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the miscellaneous case would not be maintainable as there is a provision of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra, has submitted that though there is a provision of appeal, however, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 CPC as well as its power under Order 9 Rules 13 and 8 does not stand wiped out as they are not in conflict with Section 19 of the Act. For better appreciation, the relevant provision of Section 19(1) and (5) are quoted as under:-

“19. Appeal. (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.

(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.”

From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that Section 19 has overriding effect upon any other law and an appeal would lie from every judgment or order.

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the provision under Order 9 or Section 151 CPC are in conflict with the aforesaid provision of the Act or not?

On anxious consideration of all the relevant provisions, we are of the opinion that the same is not in conflict with each other. Under the Code of Civil Procedure every order is not appealable as the appeal lies from decree which includes an order setting aside the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there are certain orders which have been specified under Order 43 Rule 1 which are considered to be appealable orders and appeal is also available against such orders. However, there are many orders which are not appealable. For example, If a petition is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint and the same is dismissed then no appeal would be available against such order, thus, only revision would lie under Section 115 CPC.

Considering these aspects of the matter, in our view, the Legislator in its wisdom has come up with Section 19(1) of the Act to provide one forum for several matters and it is stated specifically that notwit