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.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Appellant is mother of the boy, who has just completed 5 years of age. Respondent is the father, in whose favour impugned judgment/order dated 20th February, 2025 has been made by the Family Court. English translation of operative direction in impugned judgment/order is reproduced below.

"Therefore, on the above grounds, the applicant's application is accepted. The respondent is directed to ensure that the applicant meets the minor child Saaransh every month on the third Saturday in the premises of the District Legal Services Authority between 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM."

On query we have ascertained from the Bar, main divorce proceeding is still pending before the Family Court.

2. Mr. Yash Garg, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant. Mr. Jai Raj, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and raises preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal. He submits, impugned judgment/order is interim in nature. There is no right to appeal provided therefrom under section 19 in Family Courts Act, 1984. He relies on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court on judgment dated 25th January, 2011 in First Appeal no. 495 of 2010 ( Isma Alam vs. Sri Irshad Alam ), inter alia, the paragraphs reproduced below.

"Applying the principles laid down in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the learned Judge had not decided the case finally between the parties as the petition filed under section 25 of the Act numbered as 50/70/2009 is still pending. He has only decided the applications filed under section 12 and 26 of the Act and had directed for granting interim custody of the minor child to the opposite party herein pending final decision on the application filed under section 25 of the Act. Thus, the order impugned in the present appeal is an interlocutory order and an appeal under section 19 of the Act would not lie. The submission of Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel that by the impugned order, the learned Judge had in fact decided the entire controversy is misplaced.

While arriving at a conclusion as to whether the interim custody of the minor child has to be given to the opposite party herein on an application in this behalf before the learned Judge, the learned learned Judge has necessarily to record a finding as to why such an order granting interim custody is required to be passed. However, the findings recorded therein is only a tentative finding and would not in any way effect the disposal of case No. 50/70/2009 which has to be decided by the learned Judge on the basis of the material and evidence on record and in accordance with law."

(emphasis supplied)

3. Mr. Garg refers us to paragraph 9 in the affidavit supporting the stay application. The paragraph is reproduced below.

"9. That thereafter the opposite party/husband filed one application u/s 26 of the Act, 1955 on 31.08.2024 against the appellant in the pending proceedings u/s 13 of the Act, 1955 seeking a direction upon the appellant to bring their minor son at Mediation Centre of the District Court, Agra for the purpose of meeting him and also sought further direction to talk with their minor son through video call. By the means of this application the opposite party also sought an interim custody of their minor son. The copy of the application filed by the opposite party u/s 26 of the Act, 1955 on 31.08.2024 at Principal Judge Family Court, Agra is being filed herewith as Annexure no.3 to this affidavit."

(emphasis supplied)

He submits further, contact by video conferencing has already been directed by the Family Court in the domestic violence case. His client's appeal is maintainable. He relies on sect