IMPORTANT POINT
The Impugned Order, which refused permission to the petitioner to relocate along with the children abroad, has the characteristics and trappings of finality, making it appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Family Court') in GP No. 22/2021, titled Suman Sankar Bhunia v. Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking permission of the learned Family Court to relocate along with her children to the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the `UK').

2. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, challenges the maintainability of the present petition by contending that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the `Family Courts Act').

Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent:

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in pith and substance, the relief claimed by the petitioner herein before the learned Family Court was one relatable to Section 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the `GW Act'). He submits that an order passed under Section 26 of the GW Act, refusing leave for the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, is appealable in terms of Section 47(d) of the GW Act.

4. He submits that, even otherwise, the Impugned Order cannot be termed as an `Interlocutory Order'; the same would amount to a `Judgment', as the same is one of substance and affects the vital and valuable rights of the parties and has the trappings of finality. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr., (1981)4 SCC 8; order dated 22.10.2021 passed by this Court in MAT.APP. (F.C.) 126/2019 titled Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal v. Dr. Manoj Aggarwal; Jaswinder Singh v. Mrigendra Pritam Vikram Singh Steiner and Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5506; and, Manish Aggarwal v. Seema Aggarwal & Ors., (2012)192 DLT 714.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the judgment of this Court in Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh v. Sughandhi Aggarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12380, holding that an order passed on an application under Section 12 of the GW Act is not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, has been referred to a larger bench in Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal (supra) and should not be relied upon by this Court.

Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by a Family Court under Section 12 of the GW Act are purely `Interlocutory' in nature, as stipulated by Section 12 of the GW Act itself.

7. She submits that even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973)1 SCC 840; Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998)1 SCC 112; Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr., (2000)6 SCC 59; R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1056; and Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, (2010)4 SCC 409, has held that orders passed on an application under Section 12 of the GW Act are interlocutory in nature and are subject to modification at any future time.

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Isma Alam v. Irshad Alam, Neutral Citation No. 2011:AHC:10201-DB; of the Rajasthan High Court in Seema v. Sanjeev Godha, 1993 SCC OnLine Raj 216; and of this Court in Col. Ramesh Pal Singh (supra) and, Prashant Prakash Sahni v. Devika Mehra, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2111, she submits that as orders passed under Section 12 of the GW Act are interlocutory in nature, an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is not maintainable against them.

9. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed, (2010)2 SCC 654, the learned counsel fo