Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Suman Sankar Bhunia – Respondent
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 a
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) ....
Orders under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act are appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, as they affect vital rights and welfare of minors.
Appeal – Orders passed under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 would be appealable under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
Interlocutory orders under the Family Courts Act are not appealable; custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of minors by considering their perspectives.
A custody order under the Guardians and Wards Act, if a result of a full trial, is appealable and not merely interlocutory.
The impugned order was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
A reference to a larger bench is only warranted in the presence of conflicting decisions, not merely to create a precedent.
An order rejecting an amendment application is an interlocutory order and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, as it does not decide substantive rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
