K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The Registry has raised an objection that since the appeal is filed under the provisions of the Family Court Act read with Guardian and Wards Act, the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days, Section 19(3) of the Family Court Act. The counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of this Court in Viswanathan v. Sindhu 2009 (4) K.L.T. 312 stating that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act will apply and the period of limitation has to be reckoned as 90 days as provided under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that was how the matter has come before us for consideration.

2. Heard counsel for the appellants in extenso.

3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the rights of Hindus in respect of marriage, guardianship, adoption and maintenance and succession etc. are governed by Hindu Code consists of four enactments namely the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 respectively. Earlier the guardianship of minor is being considered by the District Court and appeal lies to the High Court and the period of limitation was governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act namely 90 days. Further, Section 2 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 says that it is in addition to, and not, save as hereafter expressly provided in, derogation of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Section 5 of the Act is having certain overriding effect in respect of certain aspects prevailing prior to coming into force of this Act. All these aspects were considered by this Court in "Viswanathan's case (cited supra) and observed that period of limitation provided under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act has to be reckoned for filing appeal in preference to Section 19(3) of the Family Court Act. So According to him, the appeal is filed within time. Counsel for the appellants submitted that if the court feels that the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable, an opportunity may be given to them to file an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

4. It is an admitted fact that the case was filed before the Family Court Attingal as OP (G&W) No. 694/2014 for appointment of guardian and for permanent custody of the minor child, under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act. There is no dispute regarding the status of the parties that they are Hindus and governed by the Guardian and Wards Act read with Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 in relation to guardianship and permanent custody of the minor children. It is also not in dispute that any order passed in respect of the same is appealable under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act as there is no special provision provided for filing appeal under the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act. It is also a settled law that right of appeal is a right created by the statute and it cannot be claimed as of right.

5. The facts of the case in Viswanathan's case (cited supra) was, an order passed by the Family Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when taken up in appeal, there arose a question as to whether the period of limitation provided under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will have to be reckoned in preference to the period of limitation provided under Section 19(3) of the Act. Further, this Court also taken note of the legislative intention in amending the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act by virtue of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003, whereby the period of limitation provided for filing an appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act was enhanced to 90 days from 30 based on the observations made by the apex court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 S.C.C. 73. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the necessity for enlarging the period of limitation to 90 days and wanted indulgence of the Parliament to pass appropriate