Vikram Vaman Apte vs Priyanka Vikram Apte on 23 July, 2024
In FAO
no.52/2012 titled Preety Bhardwaj Vs. Deepak
Kumar Bhardwaj decided on 21.2.2012 passed by a
Division Bench of Delhi High Court, where the
Court has dealt with the impact of the absence
Page 13 of 62
Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 21:08:57 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1486/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2024
undefined
of Rules under Section 21 of the said Act on the
efficacy of the provision of Section 19 (1) read
with sub- sections (5) & (6) of Section 19 of
the said Act. In that context it was observed
that a statutory right of appeal is created
under Section 19(1) of the said Act and such an
appeal has to be heard by a Bench consisting of
two or more Judges as per Section 19(6) of the
said Act, and absence of Rules, which are to be
framed by the High Court under Section 21 of the
said Act, would not dilute the mandate of the
legislation as contained in Section 19 of the
said Act, especially in view of the use of the
expression 'may' in Section 21 of the said
Act. A reading of Section 19 of the said Act
shows that under sub-section (1), save as
provided in sub-section (2), an appeal lies from
every judgement or order of the Family Court to
the High Court, both on facts and on law.
However, this right of appeal comes with one
limitation, i.e., it does not lie against an
interlocutory order. Sub-section (2) of Section
Page 14 of 62
Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 21:08:57 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1486/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2024
undefined
19 of the said Act specifically prohibits any
appeal from an order passed under Chapter IX of
the Cr.P.C. which contains only four provisions,
i.e., Section 125 to Section 128. Thus, a
conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act makes
it clear that the appeal would not be
maintainable before this Court from an order
passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. However,
conundrum got resolved and the party aggrieved
by an order passed under any of the provisions
of Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. is not now
remediless. This is so in view of sub-section
(4) of Section 19 of the said Act, which
provides for the revisionary power specifically
qua an order passed under Chapter IX of
the Cr.P.C. making the intent of the legislature
quite clear. Once again, the exception carved
out is that it should not be an interlocutory
order and, thus, it would have to be examined as
to what is an interlocutory order in the context
of Section 125 to Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. for
Page 15 of 62
Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 21:08:57 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1486/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2024
undefined
the purpose of Section 19 (4) of the said Act.
It is also to be noted that sub-section (5)
of Section 19 of the said Act clearly prohibits
any appeal or revision from any judgement, order
or decree of the Family Court except as provided
under sub-section (1) to (4) of Section 19 of
the said Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of
the said Act provides for the appeal to be heard
by a Bench of two or more Judges from every
judgement or order not being an interlocutory
order as is mentioned in sub-section (1)
of Section 19 of the said Act.