IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Ritu Tagore, Lisa Gill, Ritu Tagore, JJ.
Shruti Chopra - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Amit Nagpal - Respondent - Respondent
FAO-3420 of 2022(O&M)
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Interlocutory Order - Divorce Proceedings - The court held that an appeal against an interlocutory order is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The court also directed the respondent to appear before the Family Court in the pending proceedings and clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the Family Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-husband from proceeding with divorce proceedings initiated in the State of Connecticut, U.S.A. The interim order restraining the respondent was vacated as service upon the respondent was not effected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal against the interlocutory order was not maintainable and directed the respondent to appear before the Family Court in the pending proceedings. The court clarified that there was no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the Family Court.
Issues: Interlocutory appeal maintainability, continuation of divorce proceedings, service of summons
Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against an interlocutory order is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The court directed the respondent to appear before the Family Court in the pending proceedings and clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the Family Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and it was clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the Family Court.
LISA GILL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife challenging an interlocutory order dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Panipat, in pending proceedings initiated by the appellant.
2. The present appellant-wife filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for restraining the respondent-husband from proceeding against her in divorce proceedings initiated by him before the State of Connecticut, Superior Court, U.S.A. Appellant also sought a declaration that all proceedings, orders, directions, judgment, decree etc., passed by the Foreign Court be declared as null, void and unenforceable with a further prayer that any judgment, decree, order or direction passed in future by the Foreign Court be also declared as such.
3. Initially, interim order was passed by the learned Family Court, Panipat, on 23.06.2022 whereby respondent was restrained from proceeding with the pending divorce petition filed by him in U.S.A. However, as service upon the respondent was not effected, interim injunction was vacated on 21.07.2022 while recording that summons were not served in accordance with the provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in-fact divorce has been granted by the State of Connecticut Superior Court on 23.08.2022. Appellant was proceeded ex parte therein.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to deny that impugned order dated 21.07.2022 is an interlocutory order. In terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, no appeal qua an interlocutory order is maintainable. Moreover, question of interim restraint upon the respondent from continuing with divorce proceedings at U.S.A, at this stage when said proceedings have admittedly culminated in a decree of divorce (though exparte), does not arise.
7. Keeping in view the above, we find no justification in keeping the present appeal pending, at this stage. It is however, directed that respondent shall appear before the learned Family Court, Panipat, in the pending proceedings through his attorney. Needless to say, the appellant is at liberty to challenge the decree whereby divorce has been granted by the State of Connecticut Superior Court on 23.08.2022, in accordance with law, if so advised.
8. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
9. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter pending before the learned Family Court, Panipat.
Order accordingly.
Interim custody orders are not appealable under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as they are considered interlocutory and do not reflect a final judgment.
Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, would lie against order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance.
The impugned order was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
An appeal shall lie from every judgment or order of a Family Court to the High Court, not being an interlocutory order, as per Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The Impugned Order, which refused permission to the petitioner to relocate along with the children abroad, has the characteristics and trappings of finality, making it appealable under Section 19(1) ....
Interlocutory orders under the Family Courts Act are not appealable; custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of minors by considering their perspectives.
The court affirmed that jurisdiction to grant interim relief primarily rests with the lower court unless determined otherwise.
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.