Back
REKHA PALLI, JASMEET SINGH, AMIT BANSAL
Geetanjali Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Aggarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J.—This Full Bench has been constituted on the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, pursuant to the reference order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Division Bench in MAT.APP. (F.C.) 126/2019, of which one of us, namely HMJ Jasmeet Singh was a member. Vide the said order, the learned Division Bench while dealing with the appeal preferred by the mother of the minor child, the respondent in Guardianship Petition No. 05/2018, recorded its reluctance in accepting the view expressed in Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh vs. Sugandhi Aggarwal, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 211/2019, wherein it was held that an order under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter “GW Act”) passed during the pendency of proceedings before the Family Court would be an interlocutory order and would consequently, not be appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter “FC Act”). The Court noticed that a contrary decision regarding the scope of appeal under Section 19(1) of the FC Act had been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Manish Aggarwal v. Seema Aggarwal, (2012) 192 DLT 714 (DB) and, therefore, opined that the decision in Col Ramesh Pal (sup
Appeal – Orders passed under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 would be appealable under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
Orders under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act are appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, as they affect vital rights and welfare of minors.
A custody order under the Guardians and Wards Act, if a result of a full trial, is appealable and not merely interlocutory.
Interlocutory orders under the Family Courts Act are not appealable; custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of minors by considering their perspectives.
The court clarified that an order granting visitation rights is an intermediary order, thus appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
A reference to a larger bench is only warranted in the presence of conflicting decisions, not merely to create a precedent.
An order rejecting an amendment application is an interlocutory order and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, as it does not decide substantive rights.
Interim maintenance orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Family Court's interlocutory orders regarding visitation are not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, especially when subsequent events alter the initial conditions significantly.
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
