IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rohit Acharya - Appellant
Versus
Pooja Vyas & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 2693 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No. 1222 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2022
Section 482 - Family Court - Misconceived petition invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an Order passed by a Family Court is not maintainable
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an Order passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, regarding the assessment of the child by an expert and the petitioner's duty to take care of the medical expenses of the child, who is said to be suffering from Autism.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an Order passed by a Family Court is misconceived and not maintainable. The Court also directed that if any appeal has to be preferred, it has to be preferred only before the Division Bench of the Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Order passed by the Family Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there is a specific bar in preferring an appeal invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Order passed by the Family Court, especially in respect of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The Court directed that the expert report, if received or yet to be received, shall be forwarded to the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, for the V Additional Family Judge to decide the issue on its own merits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Order dated 06.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.692 of 2019 in M.C.No.278 of 2019 pending before the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed camouflage in the name of a direction to set aside the Order dated 06.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.692 of 2019 in M.C.No.275 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. At the outset, this Court is of the view that very invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an Order passed by a Family Court is misconceived and such a petition is not maintainable. It is relevant to note that Chapter V of the Family Court Act reads as follows :
CHAPTER V - APPEALS AND REVISIONS
19. Appeal. -(1) Save as provided in sub-section (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):
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.
(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
(6) An appeal referred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges. A perusal of the above section makes it very clear that any decree or Order passed by the Family Court, in respect of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a specific bar in preferring an appeal invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the Order granting maintenance to the petitioner and the minor child.
4. Be that as it may. In an earlier occasion, this Court by its Order dated 22.04.2022 has directed the assessment of the child by an expert. With the consent of both parties, child was referred to NIMHANS, Bangalore for such assessment. Now both sides submitted that the child was properly assessed by NIMHANS. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the assessment as suggested CMC, Vellore is also asked to be continued by NIMHANS and it also suggested that child should mingle with the other children and except that NIMHANS has not suggested any contrary to the suggestion given by CMC, Vellore. Hence, it is the duty of the petitioner to take care of the medical expenses of the child, who is said to be suffering from Autism.
5. In such view of the matter, the very entertaining of the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. as against the Order passed by V Additional Family Court, is not correct. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the Order passed by the V additional Family Court. If at all any appeal has to be pr
Misconceived petition invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside an Order passed by a Family Court is not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of maintenance affects the right of a person drastically and substantially, hence, it cannot be treated as an interlocutory order and....
The amendment of a maintenance claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is permissible and does not violate the Family Courts Act or Cr.P.C. if it does not cause prejudice to the opposing party.
A litigant should not try to overreach order passed by Court.
A magistrate has the authority to modify or cancel maintenance orders under Section 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C. based on changed circumstances, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
The court's decision emphasized that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not be used to inquire into the validity of the evidence, but only to consider whether the allegations in the complai....
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.