The court determined that an appeal against a Family Court's order granting visitation rights but denying interim custody is maintainable as it constitutes an intermediary order affecting substantial rights.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bh. Sai Vikas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - husband under Section - 19 of the Family Courts Act , 1984 (for short ‘Act, 1984’) challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 in I.A. No.660 of 2023 in O.P. No.524 of 2023 passed by learned Judge, I Additional Family Court - cum - XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. The appellant - husband had filed a petition vide G.W.O.P. No.524 of 2023, under Sections - 7, 9 , 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 (for ‘Act, 1890’), to declare him as guardian of minor children viz., Rudra and Sahasra and for their custody. Along with the said O.P., he had filed a petition under Section - 12 of the Act, 1890, to grant interim custody of the minor children every week from Friday 12.00 P.M. to Monday 8.20 P.M.

4. Vide the impugned order, dated 20.09.2023, learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said petition, however, to create emotional bond between the appellant herein and two minor children, visitation rights were granted by permitting him to visit the minor children on every Saturday and Sunday from 2.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. at the place of choice of the respondent and the appellant was directed to give prior intimation to the respondent by enabling her to mention her place of choice and to bring the minor children along with her to the place which was decided by her. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the husband preferred the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent - wife raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal under Section - 19 of the Act, 1984 on the ground that the impugned order is only an Interlocutory Order and, therefore, the present appeal under Section - 19 of the Act, 1984 is not maintainable.

6. Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the impugned order is trapping of finality. It is not an interlocutory order. It is an intermediary order and it attained finality. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania , [1. (1981) 4 SCC 8 ]; Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal v. Dr. Manoj Aggarwal , [2. MAT. App.(FC) 126 of 2019, decided on 22.10.2021]; and Jitendra Kumar Dewangan v. Smt. Neeti Dewangan , [3. FA (MAT) No.125 of 2022, decided on 21.09.2022]

7. Whereas, Mr. Bh. Sai Vikas, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, O.P. is still pending and, therefore, the present appeal filed under Section - 19 of the Act, 1984 is not maintainable. He placed reliance on the decisions in Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde , [4. (1998) 1 SCC 112 ] Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla , [5. (2010) 4 SCC 409 ]; Seema v. Sanjeev Godha, 1993 SCC OnLine Raj.216 and Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh v. Sughandhi Aggarwal, [7. 2019 LawSuit (Del.) 2957]

8. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that similar issue fell for consideration before a Full Bench of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava , [8. MANU/UP/2771/2004]. In the said case, husband filed a suit vide O.S. No.77 of 1987 against the wife under Section - 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a Family Court at Lucknow. Wife moved an application under Section - 24 of the Act, 1955 claiming to herself and to her daughter pe