The court clarified that the limitation period for appeals under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act is 30 days, overruling prior interpretations suggesting 90 days, to uphold the legislative intent of expedient justice.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. Gautam Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. This reference has emerged from the matrimonial appeal being MATA No.54 of 2020.

3. By the order dated 15^th May, 2023 passed in MATA No.54 of 2020, titled as Bibhuti Bhusan Rout v. Sasmita Nayak and another , a Division Bench of this Court, has taken note of the decision of Smt. Swarnalata Nayak @ Nahak @ Lily v. Manoj Kumar Nahak and Ratnamala Nahak ; 2017 (II) OLR 802 whereby it has been held that for filing of an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 pertaining to the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the period of limitation will be of 90 days, even though the Family Courts Act, 1984 has laid down the period for limitation under (3) in the following terms:

“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 Division Bench which held that the limitation period will be 90 days at par with Section 28 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observed that the apex Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey; AIR 2002 SC 591 , has observed that the period of 30 days is inadequate for preferring and filing an appeal. Therefore, in Savitri Pandey (supra), the apex Court had directed the State to reconsider the provisions relating to the period of limitation under (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act and make the change in the law.

5. Pursuant to that direction, Section 28 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was amended by extending the time of limitation to 90 days. In Swarnalata Nayak (supra), the said Division Bench of this Court, on consideration of the reasons provided in Savitri Pandey (supra), held that even in case of the appeal filed under Section 19 (3) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the period of limitation will be 90 days. It has been observed in Swarnalata Nayak (supra) as follows:

“1. It is well established in law that procedural law is always subservient to the substantive law. While provisions of "the 1955 Act" are substantive in nature, the provisions under "the 1984 Act" are mainly procedural. Therefore, the period of limitation, as provided under the substantive law for filling the appeal would prevail over the limitation period prescribed in the procedural law.

2. While Sub-Section 3 of Section 19 of "the 1984 Act" deals with a general provision; Sub-Section 4 of the Section 28 of "the 1955 Act" providing 90 days period of limitation as incorporated by way of an amendment on 22.12.2003 substituting earlier period of 30 days of limitation is a special provision in the background of the observations of the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in AIR 2002 SC 591 .

3. The purpose of amending Sub-Section 4 of Section 28 of "the 1955 Act" was to overcome the inconvenience and hardship faced by the litigant public as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey's case (supra). Keeping in mind the purpose of amendment of Sub-Section 4 of of "the 1955 Act" w.e.f. on 23.12.2003, the period of limitation as provided therein must be given prominence and predominance.

4. Where two interpretations are possible with regard to the limitation peri