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
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)शनફ न माननीय उ쭁펕 न्यायालय ननै ीताल म硏睜 ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(cid:7) (cid:5) ᔺ⽩(cid:25)रू᭜ኂ ए(cid:5) याचि(cid:30)(cid:5)ा अन्त्ቇ त धाફा 482 सी०आફ०(cid:6)ी०सी० (सी-482 नम्बફ 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 धाફा 482 सी०आફ०(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)शनફ (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)ोन्डन्(cid:7) भी सद(cid:25)ै ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (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)शनફ (cid:5) साथ ફṳ⾉न (cid:5)ो तयै ाફ ṳ⾉滊攋ै इस(cid:5) अचितरिફ屝擫 ᔺ⽩(cid:6)ᔺ⽩(cid:7)शनફ (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)ोन्डन्(cid:7) (cid:5)鎄矔 (cid:5)थिथत ्ቅूફता (यᔺ⽩द (cid:5)ो脋湳 ṳ⾉ो तो, ṳ⾉ालांᔺ⽩(cid:5) ફस्(cid:6)ोन्डन्(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)शनફ (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
Shah Shantilal Chunilal Vs. Shah Shantilal Fulchand and Another
Shankerlal Aggarwal and Others Vs. Shankerlal Poddar and Others
Shah Babu Lal Khimji Vs. Jayaben
Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana
Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharasthra
Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Central Bank of India Vs. Gokul Chand
Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.