SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2728

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. and Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Smt Anchal Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Parag Goyal – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. - 1017 of 2024 at Allahabad



Advocates:
Petitioner: Kiran Kumar Arora
Respondent: Aditya Bhushan Singhal and Shadab Husain

An order rejecting an amendment application in family court proceedings is deemed an interlocutory order, not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Appeal against order rejecting amendment application - The court dismissed the appeal as the order was deemed an interlocutory order, thus not appealable under Section 19 - The court emphasized that orders allowing or rejecting amendments do not decide substantive rights and are procedural in nature. (Paras 1, 10, 38)

(B) Interlocutory Orders - The court reiterated that an order rejecting an amendment application does not constitute a 'case decided' and is not subject to appeal under Section 19 of the Act - The decision aligns with the objective of the Family Courts Act to expedite matrimonial disputes. (Paras 30, 38)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to amend her written statement in a divorce proceeding, which was rejected by the Family Court. The appellant contended that this rejection was appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. (Paras 2, 20)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the amendment application was a procedural order and did not affect the substantive rights of the parties, thus it was not appealable. (Paras 38, 41)

Issues: The main issue was whether the order rejecting the amendment application constituted a 'case decided' under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. (Paras 10, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of an amendment application is an interlocutory order and does not decide any substantive rights, hence not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. (Paras 30, 38)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), arising from order dated 4.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on Application Paper No. 39A/1-3, filed [under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’)], by the present appellant in Original Suit No. 323 of 2022 ( Parag Goyal Vs. Smt. Anchal Goyal ), whereby the learned court below has dismissed the amendment application filed by the present appellant, seeking to introduce the following two paragraphs as paragraph nos. 54अ and 54ब, to her written statement.

"54अ- यṳ⾉ ᔺ⽩(cid:5) ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ न माननीय उ쭁펕 न्यायालय ननै ीताल म硏睜 ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(cid:7) (cid:5) ᔺ⽩(cid:25)रू᭜ኂ ए(cid:5) याचि(cid:30)(cid:5)ा अन्त्ቇ त धाફा 482 सी०आફ०(cid:6)ी०सी० (सी-482 नम्बફ 781 (cid:25)ቧ७ 2024 (cid:6)ફा्ቇ ्ቇोयल बनाम आं(cid:30)ल ्ቇोयल) योजि*त (cid:5)鎄矔 ṳ⾉ु脋湳 ṳ⾉滊攋ै उ屝擫 याचि(cid:30)(cid:5)ा अन्त्ቇ त धाફा 482 सी०आફ०(cid:6)ी०सी० (cid:5)鎄矔 (cid:5)ाय (cid:25)ाṳ⾉ी म硏睜 ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (cid:6)ફा्ቇ ्ቇोयल न अ(cid:6)न अचिध(cid:25)屝擫ा (cid:5) मा्ቛ त न्यायालय म硏睜 यṳ⾉ (cid:5)थन ᔺ⽩(cid:5)या ṳ⾉ै ᔺ⽩(cid:5) "Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Karan Anand, on instruction, submits that the applicant is ready to live with the respondent wife"

“54ब- यṳ⾉ ᔺ⽩(cid:5) ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(cid:7) भी सद(cid:25)ै ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (cid:5) साथ ફṳ⾉न (cid:5)ो इच्छु(cid:5) ए(cid:25)ं तयै ाફ ફṳ⾉ी ṳ⾉ै (cid:25) (cid:25)त मान म硏睜 भी ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (cid:5) साथ ફṳ⾉न (cid:5)ो तयै ाફ ṳ⾉滊攋ै इस(cid:5) अचितरिફ屝擫 ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (cid:5) माननीय उ쭁펕 न्यायालय ननै ीताल म硏睜 ᔺ⽩दनां(cid:5) 25-06-2024 (cid:5)ो ᔺ⽩(cid:5)य ्ቇय (cid:5)थन स ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(cid:7) (cid:5)鎄矔 (cid:5)थिथत ्ቅूફता (यᔺ⽩द (cid:5)ो脋湳 ṳ⾉ो तो, ṳ⾉ालांᔺ⽩(cid:5) ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(cid:7) (cid:5)ो स्(cid:25)ी(cid:5)ाફ नṳ⾉ी ṳ⾉ै) उ(cid:6)मቧኌቧ७त (Condone) ṳ⾉ो (cid:30)ु(cid:5)鎄矔 ṳ⾉ै, जि*स (cid:5)ाફ誋꘵ भी ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (cid:5)ा (cid:25)ाद खቄኌ?डत ṳ⾉ोन योग्य ṳ⾉滊攋ै"

3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act. For ready reference, Section 19 of the Act to the extent it is relevant to the present proceeding, reads as below:

“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 before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (59 of 1991)].

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgement or order of a Family Court.

[(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.]

[(5)] Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top