IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
Vivek Joy S/o Joy Joseph - Petitioner
Vs.
Chinchu Grace Lukose - Respondent
ZO.P.(FC) No.265 of 2018
Decided On : 26-07-2018
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
Is an order passed by the Family Court setting aside an ex parte decree appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the question mooted for decision.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed O.P.No.1582/2014 in the Family Court, Ernakulam for granting a decree of declaration that his marriage with the respondent is null and void. As an alternative relief, he sought a decree of divorce. The respondent was set ex parte in the case. As per the judgment dated 12.05.2017, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her. As per the order dated 05.03.2018 in I.A.No.2039/2017, the Family Court set aside the ex parte decree and restored O.P.No.1582/2014 to file. The petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Family Court.
3. The Registry has declined to number this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is an appealable order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
5. Sections 19(1) and 19(2) of the Act read as follows:
"19. Appeal.- (1) Save as provided in subsection (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”
6. A simple reading of the above mentioned provision would clearly reveal that, in respect of matters not covered under sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure, any judgment or order of a Family Court, except an interlocutory order, is appealable. The legislative intention as reflected in the above mentioned provision is that, no appeal would lie against an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court. Evidently, the Act prohibits appellate remedy against interlocutory orders of Family Courts.
7. In the above context, question arises whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce granted in favour of the petitioner is an interlocutory order or not.
8. What shall be the criteria for deciding whether an order is interlocutory or not? The tests to be applied to determine whether an order is final or interlocutory, apply as much to a civil case as to a criminal case. An order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not conclude the trial or proceeding at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense, without having resort to any statute (See V.C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962). The expression "interlocutory order" has to be understood in the context of the meaning of the expression "case decided" in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (See Abdul Lathif v. Saheeda, 1997 (1) KLT 734). The expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import. It includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil court (See Khanna v. Dillon, AIR 196
Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Bhaskar Industries Ltd v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.
K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat
Manga Lakshmi v. Basanth Kumar
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra
Mohanlal Maganlal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.