Patna High Court
Md. Musharraf Reza vs Sitahra Parween on 6 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.518 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Musharraf Reza son of Manzoorul Haque, resident of Mohalla-
Islamnagar, Ward No. -26, Near Easter Public School, P.O. and P.S.-Araria,
Via-Araria, District-Araria-854311 (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sitahra Parween, wife of Md. Musharraf Reza, daughter of Md. Reyazuddin,
permanent resident of Mohalla-Islamnagar, Ward No.-26, Near Easter Public
School, P.O. and P.S.-Araria, via-Araria, District-Araria-854311 (Bihar),
presently residing at Village-Ichalo, P.S.-Dagarua, P.O.-Mohamdia, via-
Kasba, District-Purnea-854330 (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2026
Heard learned counsel of both the parties.
2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application
has been filed for the following relief/s.
" (a) To set aside the order dated
28.02.2025passed in Guardian & Wards Case No. 03 of 2022 [CIS No. 03 of 2022] by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea[Annexure P7 to the instant application] whereby and whereunder the application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 preferred by the Respondent(wife) was allowed and Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 2/30 the petitioner(husband) was directed to hand over the custody of the minor child Fahad Nawaz to the respondent(wife).
(b) To stay the operation of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Guardian & Wards Case No. 03 of 2022 [CIS No. 03 of 2022] by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea (Annexure-P7 to the instant application], during the pendency of the present Civil Miscellaneous application.
(c) To pass any other order/orders in shape of a consequential relief to which the petitioner may be found to be legally entitled to the facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present Civil Miscellaneous Application, contending that no such civil miscellaneous application can lie against an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. It was submitted that the proper remedy is to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 3/30
4. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal vs. Dr. Manoj Aggarwal, reported in (2024) 4 High Court Cased (Del) 451 : 2024 SCC Online Del 7220.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present Civil Miscellaneous Application is maintainable against the aforesaid order, as the nature of the impugned order is purely interlocutory.
6. Before adverting to the factual aspects of the matter, it is important to reproduce Section 12 and other provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 under which the Impugned Order has been passed.
"12. Power to make interlocutory order for production of minor and interim protection of person and property -
(1) The Court may direct that the person, if any, having the custody of the minor, shall produce him or cause him and may make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 4/30 person or property of the minor as it thinks proper.
(2) If the minor is a female who ought not to be compelled to appear in public, the direction under sub-section (1) for her production shall require her to be produced in accordance with the customs and manners of the country.
(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise -
(a) the Court to place a female minor in the temporary custody of a person claiming to be her guardian on the ground of his being her husband, unless she is already in his custody with the consent of her parents, if any, or
(b) any person to whom the temporary custody and protection of the property of a minor is entrusted to dispossess otherwise than by due course of law any person in possession of any of the property."
7. As per the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent, the said impugned order, having been passed by the Family Court, is appealable. Further, under Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 5/30 Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the orders which are appealable have been specifically enumerated, as under:--
" 47. Orders appealable - An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order may be a Court, -
(a) under section 7, appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian; or
(b) under section 9, sub-section (3), returning an application; or
(c) under section 25, making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody of his guardian; or
(d) under section 26, refusing leave for the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or imposing conditions with respect thereto; or
(e) under section 28 or section 29, refusing permission to a guardian to do an act referred to in the section; or
(f) under section 32, defining, restricting or extending the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 6/30 powers of a guardian; or
(g) under section 39, removing a guardian; or
(h) under section 40, refusing to discharge a guardian; or
(i) under section 43, regulating the conduct or proceedings of a guardian or settling a matter in difference between joint guardians, or enforcing the order; or
(j) under section 44 or section 45, imposing a penalty."
8. In Family Courts Act, 1984 also there is statutory provision regarding jurisdiction of the Court and appeal under Sections 7 and 19 respectively, which are as follows :-
" 7. Jurisdiction. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall -
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 7/30 nature referred to in the Explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation. - The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely: -
(a) ..............
(b) .............
(c) ............
(d) .........
(e)...........
(f) ...............
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 8/30 (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise -
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment."
"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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 9/30 (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 by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
(4) The High Court may, on its own motion or Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 10/30 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 court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
(6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges"
9. On the anvil of aforesaid specific statutory provision pertaining to appeal i.e. Section 47 of Guardians Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 11/30 and Wards Act, 1890 as well as Section 19 of Family Courts Act, when I examine the Impugned Order, it transpires that Section 12 itself speaks about making Interlocutory order for production of minor and interim protection of person and property. The title of Section 12 itself shows that this Section does not empower the Court to make any final order rather under this provision, the Court has power to make interlocutory order within the ambit of Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. With regard to production of minor and interim protection of person and property, court cannot pass any final order u/s 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, rather there is specific provision for making orders as to the Guardianship under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act which reads as under:-
" 7. Power of the Court to make order as to guardianship. -
(1) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made -
(a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both, or
(b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 12/30 the Court may make an order accordingly.
(2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court.
(3) Where a guardian has been
appointed by will or other
instrument or appointed or
declared by the Court, an order under this Section appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be made until the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have ceased under the provisions of this Act."
10. Furthermore, I have quoted herein above various orders which is appealable under Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act in which the order passed under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act does not find mentioned. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 13/30 Fulmaniya Yadav, reported in 2016 13 SCC 308: AIR 2016 SC 2161 is quite relevant at this juncture. The Hon'be Apex Court, while considering the scope of Section 7 of the Family Court Act has observed that the Family Courts act has an overriding effect. A plain reading of Sub section (i) of the Section 19 of the Family Courts Act makes it clear that no appeal shall lie against the interlocutory orders passed under the Family Courts Act. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments having the effect of law. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act reads as follows:-
20. Act to have overriding effect- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. "
11. Now, I propose to examine some brief facts of this case in which the Impugned Order has been passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2022. The above case was Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 14/30 filed by the respondent/Sitahra Parween against her husband, petitioner/Mohd. Musharraf Reza. In that case, the respondent/wife has prayed that an order granting custody of her minor son, namely, Fahad Nawaz be given to the respondent/wife from her husband/petitioner for the welfare of the minor child and in the interest of justice. After hearing both the parties, impugned order was passed on 28.02.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family court, Purnea and the aforesaid petition of respondent/Sitahra Parween was allowed which is impugned in this case.
12. A similar matter was raised before the Division Bench of this Court (Patna High Court), which was decided in the case of Benazir Hasan Vs. Md. Rayeesul Azam and Another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Pat 4745. In the said judgment, the meaning of order and interlocutory order and scope of judgment and interlocutory order has been categorically discussed which is mentioned from para 14 to 18 of the said judgment.
" 14. At this stage, it is necessary to take note of meaning of 'order' and 'interlocutory order' from the Black's Law Dictionary which read as under:-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 15/30 "order, n. 1. A command, direction, or instruction. See MANDATE (1). 2. A written direction or command delivered by a court or judge. The word generally embraces final decrees as well as interlocutory directions or commands. Also termed court order; judicial order. See MANDAMUS. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 928; Motions 46. C.J.S. Motions and Orders §§ 1-3, 13, 50, 59.] "An order is the mandate or determination of the court upon some subsidiary or collateral matter arising in an action, not disposing of the merits, but adjudicating a preliminary point or directing some step in the proceed- ings."
1 Henry Campbell Black, A Treatise on the Law of Judgments § 1, at 5 (2d ed. 1902).
"While an order may under some circumstances amount to a judgment, they must be distinguished, owing to the different consequences flowing from them, not only in the matter of enforcement and appeal but in other respects, as, for instance, the time within which proceedings to annul them must be taken. Rulings on motions are ordinarily orders Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 16/30 rather than judgments. The class of judgments and of decrees formerly called interlocutory is included in the definition given in [modern codes] of the word 'order.'" 1 A.C. Freeman, A Treatise of the Law of Judgments § 19, at 28 (Edward W. Tuttle ed., 5th ed. 1925).
interlocutory order (in-tər-lok-yə- tor-ee). An order that relates to some intermediate matter in the case; any order other than a final order. Most interlocutory orders are not appealable until the case is fully resolved. But by rule or statute, most jurisdictions allow some types of interlocutory orders (such as preliminary injunctions and class- certification orders) to be immediately appeal- ed. -- Also termed interlocutory decision; interim order; intermediate order. See appealable decision under DECISION; COLLATERALORDER DOCTRINE. [Cases: Appeal and Error 67; Federal Courts 572, 576; Motions 51. C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 84; Motions and Orders §§ 2, 52-53, 55.]"
15. It is to be noted that final order has to be interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order; and the test for Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 17/30 determining the finality of an order is whether Judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties. If an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but is only on certain aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order; that the concept of the interlocutory order has to be explained in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order.
Therefore, the impugned order is not appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. There is no concept of order other than interlocutory order or final order. The impugned order would fall in the nature of interlocutory order. Consequently, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable.
16. Section 47 of the G and W Act relates to appealable orders. We have quoted various Sections but Section 11, Procedure on Admission of Application, is not part and parcel of Section 47.
17. In Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308: AIR 2016 SC 2161, the Apex Court while considering the scope of section 7 of the Family Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 18/30 Courts Act observed that the Family Courts Act has an overriding effect. A plain reading of sub section (1) of Section 19 makes it clear that no appeal lies against interlocutory orders passed under the Family Courts Act.
18. The scope of 'Judgment' and 'interlocutory order' has been distinguished time and again by the Apex Court. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kama, (1981) 4 SCC 8 : AIR 1981 SC 1786, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of 'interlocutory order' and the expression 'judgment' which was assigned a wider meaning and has extended the scope of right of appeal where the characteristics and trappings of the finality of the issue is available. The relevant paras 113- 115 reads as under:--
"113. Thus, under the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment consists of the reasons and grounds for a decree passed by a court. As a judgment constitutes the reasons for the decree it follows as a matter of course that the judgment must be a formal adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 19/30 parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy. The concept of a judgment as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure seems to be rather narrow and the limitations engrafted by sub-section (2) of Section 2 cannot be physically imported into the definition of the word "judgment" as used in clause 15 of the letters patent because the letters patent has advisedly not used the terms "order"
or "decree" anywhere. The intention, therefore, of the givers of the letters patent was that the word "judgment" should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation than the word "judgment" used in the Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time, it cannot be said that any order passed by a trial Judge would amount to a judgment;
otherwise there will be no end to the number of orders which would be appealable under the letters patent. It seems to us that the word "judgment" has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense. In other words, a judgment can be of three kinds: (1) A final judgment.- A judgment which decides all the questions or issues Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 20/30 in controversy so far as the trial Judge is concerned and leaves nothing else to be decided. This would mean that by virtue of the judgment, the suit or action brought by the plaintiff is dismissed or decreed in part or in full. Such an order passed by the trial Judge indisputably and unquestionably is a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent and even amounts to a decree so that an appeal would lie from such a judgment to a Division Bench. (2) A preliminary judgment. - This kind of a judgment may take two forms-(a) where the trial Judge by an order dismisses the suit without going into the merits of the suit but only on a preliminary objection raised by the defendant or the party opposing on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. Here also, as the suit is finally decided one way or the other, the order passed by the trial Judge would be a judgment finally deciding the cause so far as the Trial Judge is concerned and therefore appealable to the larger Bench, (b) Another shape which a preliminary judgment may take is that where the trial Judge passes an order after hearing the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 21/30 preliminary objections raised by the defendant relating to maintainability of the suit, e.g., bar of jurisdiction, res judicata, a manifest defect in the suit, absence of notice under Section 80 and the like, and these objections are decided by the trial Judge against the defendant, the suit is not terminated but continues and has to be tried on merits but the order of the trial Judge rejecting the objections doubtless adversely affects a valuable right of the defendant who, if his objections are valid, is entitled to get the suit dismissed on preliminary grounds. Thus, such an order even though it keeps the suit alive, undoubtedly decides an important aspect of the trial which affects a vital right of the defendant and must, therefore, be construed to be a judgment so as to be appealable to a larger Bench. (3) Intermediary or interlocutory judgment-Most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order 43 Rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. There may also be Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 22/30 interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order 43 Rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding :
Before such an order can be a judgment the adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. For instance, where the trial Judge in a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure refuses the defendant leave to defend the suit, the order directly affects the defendant because he loses a valuable right to defend the suit and his remedy is confined only to contest the plaintiff's case on his own evidence without being given a chance to rebut that evidence. As such an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendant it will undoubtedly be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench. Take the converse case in a similar suit where the trial Judge allows the defendant to defend the suit in which case although the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 23/30 plaintiff is adversely affected but the damage or prejudice caused to him is not direct or immediate but of a minimal nature and rather too remote because the plaintiff still possesses his full right to show that the defence is false and succeed in the suit. Thus, such an order passed by the trial Judge would not amount to a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent but will be purely an interlocutory order. Similarly, suppose the trial Judge passes an order setting aside an ex parte decree against the defendant, which is not appealable under any of the clauses of Order 43 Rule I though an order rejecting an application to set aside the decree passed ex parte falls within Order 43 Rule 1 clause (d) and is appealable, the serious question that arises is whether or not the order first mentioned is a judgment within the meaning of letters patent. The fact, however, remains that the order setting aside the ex parte decree puts the defendant to a great advantage and works serious injustice to the plaintiff because as a consequence of the order, the plaintiff has now to contest the suit and is Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 24/30 deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in his favour. In these circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the trial Judge setting aside the ex parte decree vitally affects the valuable rights of the plaintiff and hence amounts to an interlocutory judgment and is therefore, appealable to a larger Bench."
114. In the course of the trial, the trial Judge may pass a number of orders whereby some of the various steps to be taken by the parties in prosecution of the suit may be of a routine nature while other orders may cause some inconvenience to one party or the other, e.g., an order refusing an adjournment, an order refusing to summon an additional witness or documents, an order refusing to condone delay in filing documents, after the first date of hearing an order of costs to one of the parties for its default or an order exercising discretion in respect of a procedural matter against one party or the other. Such orders are purely interlocutory and cannot constitute judgments because it will always be open to the aggrieved party to make a Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 25/30 grievance of the order passed against the party concerned in the appeal against the final judgment passed by the trial Judge.
115. Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment."
13. Similar question has been answered/decided by this Court in C. Misc. No. 539 of 2025.
14. After going through the aforesaid statutory provision of Section 91 of the Family Court Act as well as the above judgment, it is now well established that Appeal is maintainable only against the final judgment or order Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 26/30 passed by the Family Court and Civil Miscellaneous is maintainable against the interlocutory order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
15. Now, I propose to examine that whether the impugned order passed in this case comes under the purview/ambit of interlocutory order or the entire matter of guardianship has been finally and conclusively decided in the garb of the impugned order.
16. The impugned order has been passed in Guardians and Wards Case No. 03 of 2022. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the case has been filed by the respondent/wife under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for granting custody of her minor son Fahad Nawaz from the custody of the petitioner/husband.
17. The following relief/s has been sought for in the above case (Guardian and Wards No. 03/2022).
"Therefore that your honour may be pleased enough to accept this petition by keeping the minor son Fahad Nawaz in care and custody of the mother-the appellant from the possession of the O.P"
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 27/30
18. As per averments, the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemonized on 17.03.2018 in presence of relatives and villagers and from their wedlock, a male child (Fahad Nawaz) was born who is presently aged about 3 years. As per petition, after birth of son, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent became bitter and subsequently, Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021 was instituted by the respondent/wife against petitioner/husband. It is further averred that petitioner/husband has recently married again and brought step-mother of her minor son. The petitioner/husband is not taking proper care for nourishing his minor son. It is also averred that as per Section 352 of Mulla, the minor son till seven years of age should be under the care and custody of his mother for proper growth and future of the son. It is further submitted that Maintenance Case No.191 of 2021 is also going on between the parties.
19. After filing rejoinder, the court concerned has conducted full fledged trial/enquiry of the aforesaid matter and for disposal of the case, the Court concerned has framed six issues in which issue No. 2 are as follows:-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 28/30 "(ii) Whether it is in the welfare of the child to be in the custody of the father or in the custody of the mother?"
20. Lastly, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea had come to the conclusion on the following findings:-
"24. From the discussion as above, this Court finds that petitioner has sufficiently proved her case for her right to custody of her minor child Fahad Nawaz aged about 3(three) years. Accordingly this petition is hereby allowed. The opposite party(father) is directed to hand over the custody of the minor child Fahad Nawaz to the petitioner(mother). The opposite party shall have visiting right of his minor son Fahad Nawaz. He also has the liberty to bring back his beloved wife(petitioner) along with his minor son Fahad Nawaz and keep them with him with all love, affection, care and dignity."
21. Para 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act speaks about interlocutory order for protection of minor. By Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 29/30 the impugned order, the right to custody of minor child Fahad Nawaz has been finally allowed in favour of the mother/applicant. The tone and tenor of the entire exhaustive judgment shows that after conducting full fledged enquiry/trial and taking the entire evidence into consideration, learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to the conclusion that respondent/wife has sufficiently proved her case for her right to custody of her minor child Fahad Nawaz, aged about three years. The Court has also granted visiting rights to the petitioner/husband to meet his minor son Fahad Nawaz.
22. After examining the impugned order meticulously for deciding the maintainability of this case, I find that the tone and tenor of the entire exhaustive judgment shows that this is not an interlocutory order. It is apparent that in Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2022 full fledged trial has been conducted and Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2022 has attained finality by the impugned order and the right to custody of minor child Fahad Nawaz has been given in favour of the appellant/wife which comes under the purview of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2025 dt.06-02-2026 30/30 Act, 1890, although it is not mentioned either in the petition or in the impugned order. Hence, this order comes under the purview of Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which mandates it as an appellable order.
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and considering the tone and tenor of the impugned order, this Civil Miscellaneous application is not applicable, rather appeal is maintainable.
24. The petitioner/husband, if wishes, is at liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
25. Civil Miscellaneous No. 518 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 13/11/2025 Uploading Date 09/02/2026 Transmission Date N/A