Karnataka High Court
R. Varadaraj vs Smt. V. Nirmala on 8 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2002KANT241, II(2002)DMC120, 2002(2)KARLJ460, AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 241, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1196, (2002) 2 HINDULR 718, (2002) 7 DMC 120, (2002) 2 KANT LJ 460, (2002) 2 MARRILJ 301, (2002) 3 RECCRIR 152
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This revision petition originally filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and later on sought to be converted into a writ petition under Section 151 of the CPC is directed against the order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending proceedings in M.C. No. 808 of 1999 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order wherein interim maintenance has been fixed in favour of the respondent.
3. Sri Vishwanatha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has no other alternative remedy. As such, the revision petition has to be entertained. The learned Counsel has brought to the notice of the Court the following decisions of this Court:
(i) T.V. Satyanarayana v. Subba Aruna Meenakshi ;
(ii) Smt. Shashi Sharma alias Seema v Praveen Sharma and Anr. ;
(iii) Sateppa Basappa v Ku. Geetha 1999 Cri. L.J. 927 (Kar.).
4. The gist of the submission on behalf of the petitioner by his Counsel based on the above decisions is that as the petitioner cannot even maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the decision of the Division Bench in Smt Shashi Sharma's case, supra, he will be left with no remedy against the order impugned and as such, this revision petition has to be entertained.
5. The question of petitioner being provided with any remedy or left without any remedy does not arise for consideration of the Court.
6. The remedy of appeal as pointed out by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Shashi Sharma, supra, is a statutory one and is regulated by the statute. Insofar as the orders of Family Court, an appeal lies only as against an order which is a final order or judgment and not being an interlocutory order as provided under Section 19(1) of the said Act. The revision does not lie in respect of orders in the nature of interlocutory orders in a pending proceeding before the Family Court and revision petitions can be entertained as per Section 19(4) of the Act only in the case of an order passed by the Family Court under Chapter 9 of the Cr. P.C., 1973. In respect of any other type of order, no revision petition lies.
7. The provisions of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act have been given overriding effect over the provisions of the CPC. In this view of the matter, the revision petition under Section 115 or even an appeal under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC cannot be entertained.
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is rejected as not tenable either under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act or under Section 19(4) of the CPC. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy which is available to him if he is aggrieved by the order impugned in the present revision petition.
9. The interim order stands dissolved in view of dismissal of the revision petition.