The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of statutes, specifically the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to determine the maintainability of a revision.

Revision petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent. Respondent married the daughter of the revision petitioner. In the marriage two children were born. The wife died in 1988.. After her death the two children are residing with the revision petitioner their grand mother. While so the respondent filed O.P.258 of 1992 for the custody of his children under S.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In that the revision petitioner filed I.A. 567 of 1993 under S.10 read with S.151 C.P.C. for staying the O.P.258 of 1992 till the investigation as to I he cause of death of her daughter on the basis of a com plaint filed by her is completed. Learned Judge dismissed the petition. This revision is against the said order.

2. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent's counsel that the revision is not maintainable. According to him no revision is maintainable from the order under challenge as per the provisions in the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short' the act). Learned counsel for the respondent made reliance on S.19(5) of the Act in support of his said contention. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revision petition or maintained that with due regard to S.48 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with S.3 thereof, a revision since is maintainable under the Guardians and Wards Act, and since under S.7(1)' of the Act the Family Court exercises the same jurisdiction as that of the District Court the revision is maintainable. Consequently according to him S.19(5) of the Act should receive an interpretation which would give effect to the a foresaid provision of the Guardians and Wards Act.

3. For appreciating the said rival contentions it is necessary to read the aforesaid provisions. S.48 of the Guardians and Wards Act reads:

"48. Save as provided by the last foregoing section and by S.622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order made under this Act shall be final, and shall not be liable to be contested by suit or otherwise". Section 622 therein corresponds to S.115 of the present C.P.C. S.7 of the Act so far as it is relevant reads:

7. Jurisdiction - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, A Family Court shall -

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation - The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature namely: -

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to any minor." .

(Emphasis supplied).

Since the order passed under the Guardians and Wards Act is revisable under S.115 of the C.P.C. as noticed, it is the case of the petitioner, when the powers of the Family Court is understood in the light of S.7(1) of the Act read with Explanation (g) thereof it could be seen that, the Family Court exercises the same power as that of the District Court. Therefore, according to him an order passed by the Family Court is also revisable under S.115 CPC.

4. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, as noticed, is based on sub-section (5) of S.19 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of S.19 enjoins that except as provided for in sub-sections (1) to (4) no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. S.19(1) provides for an appeal from any judgment or order other than interlocutory order of a Family Court. Sub-section (4) states that a revision shall lie from an order under Chapt.IX of CPC other than an interlocutory order. And sub-section (5) enjoins except as indicated above no appeal or revision shall lie from any judgm