Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Sudhanshu Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Komal Gupta – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 109 of 2019
Decided On : 25-07-2019
Revision - Order under Section 115, C.P.C. - Sections 10 and 19 of the Family Courts Act - [10, 19] - The court discussed the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings before a Family Court and the appealability of orders passed by the Family Court. It highlighted that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are subject to and circumscribed by the provisions of the Family Courts Act and that an appeal lies against every order passed by the Family Court, which is not an interlocutory order, despite any provision of the C.P.C. to the contrary. The court also emphasized that the provisions of the Family Courts Act shall prevail over the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against the rejection of an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by the Family Court in a matrimonial petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision was not maintainable as the order was appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act and the provisions of the Family Courts Act prevailed over the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the revision against the order of the Family Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision was not maintainable as the order was appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act and the provisions of the Family Courts Act prevailed over the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Alok Tiwari, who states that he shall be e-filing his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.
2. The instant revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against an order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Matrimonial Petition No. 243 of 2012 (Smt. Komal Gupta v. Sudhanshu Gupta), whereby an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed by the revisionist for amendment in his written statement has been rejected.
3. The stamp reporter has reported that this revision is not maintainable.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this revision, which as noticed above, is directed against an order passed by the Family Court.
5. The contention of Shri Rahul Sahai, counsel for the revisionist is that Section 10 of the Family Courts Act provides that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to proceedings and suits before a Family Court. The Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such Court. This aspect requires consideration while deciding the question of maintainability of this revision.
6. He has next submitted that Section 19 provides that every order passed by the Family Court, which is not interlocutory in nature is appealable to the High Court and, therefore, a revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is not barred.
7. He has placed reliance upon three judgments to submit that a revision against the impugned order is clearly maintainable.
1. Isma Alam v. Irshad Alam passed in First Appeal No. 495 of 2010 decided on 25.1.2011, especially paragraphs 20 and 22 conclusive paragraph 28.
2. Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahadeo and others, 1968 (38) AWR 103, especially paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 23 and 24.
3. Yogish Arora v. Smt. Jennettee Dsouza, 2018 (9) ADJ 379.
8. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the revision is not maintainable.
9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the judgments cited by counsel for the revisionist.
10. For the purposes of the controversy involved in this revision, it appears relevant to refer to Sections 10 and 19 of the Family Courts Act, which are quoted below:
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other.
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
