SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashutosh Shastri, Divyesh A. Joshi, JJ.
Rajan Ankleshwaria S/O Manojkumar Babulal Ankleshwariya – Petitioner
Versus
Vinni Ankleshwaria D/O Mahesh Gulshanrai Malhotra – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 3311 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2023 In R/First Appeal No. 3311 of 2023
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Jal Unwala, Senior Advocate with Ms Tejal A Vashi
For the Respondent: Mr Nirav C Thakkar for Mr Bhavin J Satwara

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 7, 17, 25 - Appeal regarding custody and visitation rights of minor child - Appellant's challenge against Family Court's interim order allows visitation rights but is interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Dismissal of First Appeal on grounds of maintainability. (Paras 3, 12, 23)

(B) Interlocutory Orders - Definition and scope - An order is interlocutory if it does not determine the rights of parties or settle the main controversy; appeal against such orders is restricted under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. (Paras 14, 15, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent were married, with a son born during the marriage. After the respondent left the home without cause, the appellant sought custody following the respondent's refusal to return their son. An interim order granted visitation rights, which led to the present First Appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the order was interlocutory, restricting the appellant's ability to appeal under Section 96. The rights of the child’s custody were not finally decided.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Family Court's order was interlocutory and thus not appealable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order in question was interlocutory as it did not resolve the main custody dispute, thus making the appeal unmaintainable under the Family Courts Act.

Result: First Appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of marriage and custody dispute (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural history of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 10)
3. arguments on the maintainability of appeal (Para 5 , 6)
4. interpretation of family courts act regarding appeals (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. classification of orders: interlocutory vs interim (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. decision on maintainability of the appeal (Para 19 , 22)
7. conclusion and order dismissing the appeal (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Shastri, J.

1. By way of present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , appellant- original applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 4.7.2023 passed below Exh.6 of Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 passed by learned Principal Family Court at Anand.

2. The background of case which has given rise to present appeal is that appellant and respondent got married on 19.1.2013 and on 19.1.2014, their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Customary Rites and Ceremonies at Anand and during their wedlock, a son, named as Dhven, was born on 26.7.2018. According to appellant, during passage of time, some difference of opinion generated between appellant and respondent and according to appellant, respondent wife left the matrimonial house on 26.10.2022 without any valid reason. When the respondent left the house, their son was with appellant husband at his residence at Ahmedabad and appellant alone used to take care of all needs of the son and used to take care of academic schedule and used to pick and drop the son from school. Later on, some arrangement has taken place for dropping the son with respondent at her above-mentioned place at Anand in the weekends, i.e. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and pick him up on Sunday from Anand. Said arrangement was continued and academic schedule of their son was also not got disturbed. Minor son had a vacation in the school from 24.12.2022 till 2.1.2023 and as such respondent requested the appellant to drop their son at Anand for whole vacation period and keeping faith on respondent, appellant has dropped their son at the residence of respondent wife at Anand. Thereafter, on 2.1.2023, appellant called the respondent informing about his schedule to pick up their son, but respondent wife conveyed that she will not return the son to reside with appellant and thereafter having received such non-cooperative attitude, appellant was constrained to prefer an application being Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 for seeking custody of their minor son Dhven under Sections, 7, 17 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act read with Section 7 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT and read with Order-XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure and in that proceedings, an application was submitted below Exh.6 for seeking interim and temporary injunction.

3. It is the case of the appellant that during pendency of the main proceedings, i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023, appellant received a notice on 4.3.2023 from the Family Court at Anand informing that respondent wife has preferred Civil Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Said applications then were referred for mediation on 4.3.2023 and later on, failure report was submitted on 27.3.2023 since mediation remained unsuccessful and matter came back in the Family Court. Subsequently, a joint pursis at Exh.18 was preferred on 28.3.2023 in Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 indicating that minor son shall be with wife from Monday to Friday and in the weekends, i.e. from Saturday 5.00 p.m. to Sunday 6.00 p.m. minor son shall with present appellant. Said arrangement was abided by both the parties to the proceedings till hearing of interim and temporary injunction application being Exh.6. It is the case of the appellant that incidentally, appellant has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court on 28.6.202

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top