IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, DIVYESH A. JOSHI, JJ.
Rajan Ankleshwaria S/o Manojkumar Babulal Ankleshwariya – Appellant
Versus
Vinni Ankleshwaria D/o Mahesh Gulshanrai Malhotra W/o Rajan Ankleshwaria – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 3311 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2023
Decided on : 06-09-2023
Custody Dispute - Guardians and Wards Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Family Courts Act, Code of Civil Procedure - The appellant filed an application under Sections 7, 17, and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and read with Order-XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court passed an order granting visitation rights to the appellant. The respondent also filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The court analyzed the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Family Courts Act, and Code of Civil Procedure in determining the maintainability of the appeal.}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent got married and had a son. The respondent wife left the matrimonial house without any valid reason, and the appellant filed an application seeking custody of their son. During the pendency of the application, the respondent also filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act. The court passed an order granting visitation rights to the appellant. The appellant filed a First Appeal challenging the validity of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed whether the First Appeal was maintainable. The respondent argued that the appeal should be dismissed as it was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The appellant argued that the appeal was maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The court examined the relevant provisions and referred to previous decisions. It concluded that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and not a final order, and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. It dismissed the First Appeal.
Result: The First Appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.
1. By way of present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, appellant- original applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 4.7.2023 passed below Exh.6 of Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 passed by learned Principal Family Court at Anand.
2. The background of case which has given rise to present appeal is that appellant and respondent got married on 19.1.2013 and on 19.1.2014, their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Customary Rites and Ceremonies at Anand and during their wedlock, a son, named as Dhven, was born on 26.7.2018. According to appellant, during passage of time, some difference of opinion generated between appellant and respondent and according to appellant, respondent wife left the matrimonial house on 26.10.2022 without any valid reason. When the respondent left the house, their son was with appellant husband at his residence at Ahmedabad and appellant alone used to take care of all needs of the son and used to take care of academic schedule and used to pick and drop the son from school. Later on, some arrangement has taken place for dropping the son with respondent at her above-mentioned place at Anand in the weekends, i.e. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and pick him up on Sunday from Anand. Said arrangement was continued and academic schedule of their son was also not got disturbed. Minor son had a vacation in the school from 24.12.2022 till 2.1.2023 and as such respondent requested the appellant to drop their son at Anand for whole vacation period and keeping faith on respondent, appellant has dropped their son at the residence of respondent wife at Anand. Thereafter, on 2.1.2023, appellant called the respondent informing about his schedule to pick up their son, but respondent wife conveyed that she will not return the son to reside with appellant and thereafter having received such non-cooperative attitude, appellant was constrained to prefer an application being Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 for seeking custody of their minor son Dhven under Sections, 7, 17 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and read with Order-XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure and in that proceedings, an application was submitted below Exh.6 for seeking interim and temporary injunction.3. It is the case of the appellant that during pendency of the main proceedings, i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023, appellant received a notice on 4.3.2023 from the Family Court at Anand informing that respondent wife has preferred Civil Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Said applications then were referred for mediation on 4.3.2023 and later on, failure report was submitted on 27.3.2023 since mediation remained unsuccessful and matter came back in the Family Court. Subsequently, a joint pursis at Exh.18 was preferred on 28.3.2023 in Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2023 indicating that minor son shall be with wife from Monday to Friday and in the weekends, i.e. from Saturday 5.00 p.m. to Sunday 6.00 p.m. minor son shall with present appellant. Said arrangement was abided by both the parties to the proceedings till hearing of interim and temporary injunction application being Exh.6. It is the case of the appellant that incidently, appellant has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court on 28.6.2023 which has not been processed further, but then while taking decision on 4.7.2023, learned Principal Family Judge, according to appellant, has traveled beyond the scope of application which has led the appellant to submit present First Appeal for the reliefs which are set out in paragraph 6 of the appeal. Operative part of the order passed below Exh.6 reads as under:-
(1) This application is partly allowed.
(2) The applicant father shall have
Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639
The impugned order was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The Impugned Order, which refused permission to the petitioner to relocate along with the children abroad, has the characteristics and trappings of finality, making it appealable under Section 19(1) ....
Interlocutory orders under the Family Courts Act are not appealable; custody decisions must prioritize the welfare of minors by considering their perspectives.
A custody order under the Guardians and Wards Act, if a result of a full trial, is appealable and not merely interlocutory.
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.
Minor child does not have coping skills or intellectual ability to understand issues between adult relationship or parents unhappiness.
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.
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.