Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
Rajni Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Vikas Gupta - Respondent
Cm(M) 1361 of 2019 & Cm No. 41114 of 2019
Decided On : 14-11-2019
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Ms.Reena Jain, Mr. Vineet Malhotra and Ms. Shefali Kishore, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Altmish Siddiki and Ms. Kamakshi Gupta, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, regarding the appealability of orders not being interlocutory, and the application of the definition of interlocutory orders in determining the appealability of specific orders.
Headnote:
APPEAL - FAMILY COURT - Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 19(1) - Sections 24 to 27 of the HM Act - Chapter 9 of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 125 to 128) - Section 7 of the said Act - Judgment and order not being interlocutory order - Intermediate orders - Interlocutory orders - Judgment under the Letters Patent Act - Order refusing permission to file an additional document or to summon additional witnesses - Appealability under Section 19 of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Family Court dismissing the application to produce additional documents and examine witnesses. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, contending that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the scope and ambit of Section 19 of the Act, considering previous judgments and the definition of interlocutory orders. It found that the Impugned Order was not appealable under Section 19 of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the appealability of the Impugned Order under Section 19 of the Act, the relevance of additional documents and witnesses, and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Impugned Order was not appealable under Section 19 of the Act, as it did not constitute an interlocutory order. It also found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient reasons for not producing the additional documents earlier, and that the appointment of a Local Commissioner was justified.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Impugned Order was not appealable and that the petitioner had not provided valid reasons for seeking to produce additional documents and witnesses at a belated stage.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, District Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi in HMA No.166/2017, titled Dr.Vikas Gupta v. Dr.Rajni Gupta. The Impugned Order dismisses the application filed by the petitioner seeking to produce additional documents as also examine various witnesses. The Impugned Order also appoints a Local Commissioner to record the evidence of the petitioner.
2. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition. She contends that against the Impugned order an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is maintainable. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Section 19 of the Act is reproduced here-in-below:
“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.
(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.
(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
(6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.”
4. Sub-Section 1 of Section 19 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Family Court to the High Court, both on facts and law. Therefore, what is to be determined is whether the Impugned Order challenged in the present petition can be termed as an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 19(1) of the Act.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 13.09.2012 passed in FAO 388/2012, titled Manish Aggarwal v. Seema Aggarwal & Ors., has considered the scope and ambit of Section 19 of the Act and has held as under:
“26. We, thus, conclude as under:
i. In respect of orders passed under Sections 24 to 27 of the HM Act appeals would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act to the Division Bench of this Court in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act, such orders being in the nature of intermediate orders. It must be noted that sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act is applicable only in respect of sub-section (1) and not sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.
ii. No appeal would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act qua proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 125 to 128) in view of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act.
iii. The remedy of criminal revision would be available qua both the interim and final order under Sections 125 to 128 of the Cr.P.C. under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.
iv. As a measur
