Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Sri Rajeev Misra, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal before this Court. According to him, the decree under challenge is a decree for dissolution of marriage passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). It is therefore, appealable under Section 28 of the Act as the decree of the Court made in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. He submits that in view of it, the appeal would lie under Section 96 C.P.C. Since the valuation of the suit and the instant appeal is Rs. 1000/- only, which is less than Rs. 5 lacs, therefore, the appeal would lie before the District Judge, and not to this Court.

2. Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, counsel for appellant, refuting the contentions made by Sri Rajeev Misra, submitted that the appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Family Courts Act”) and therefore, in view of Section 19(1) and (6), it would lie before the High Court and is to be heard by a Division Bench consisting of two or more judges. He thus contends that it has been rightly filed before this Court and is