Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan Vs Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan Vs Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file before the appropriate court; Office directed to return original documents to counsel for the appellant after keeping a photo copy on record.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appeal From Order preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC against the Family Court's rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is legally maintainable, given that the impugned order is not interlocutory and an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 18.07.2025 of the Family Court, Firozabad is not an interlocutory order, because the proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014 are not pending before any court and Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023 stands disposed by that very order.

Ratio / Principle

Against a non-interlocutory judgment or order of a Family Court, an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (to be heard by a Bench of two or more judges); consequently, the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC is not legally maintainable.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the appellant was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sandeep Jain, J.): Where the Family Court, Firozabad had rejected the wife's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of an exparte decree in Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014, and no proceeding in that petition remained pending, the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 was held to be final and not interlocutory. An appeal from such an order lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before a Bench of two or more Judges, and not under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC; the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC was therefore held not legally maintainable. The First Appeal From Order was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file before the appropriate court, and original documents were directed to be returned to the appellant's counsel.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2474 of 2025

Smt. Dr. Rakhi Chauhan

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr. Rajkumar (Since Deceased) And Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nikhil Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 38

HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC by the estranged wife challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023 (Smt. Rakhi Chauhan Vs. Rajkumar & another) whereby the defendant-appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.

It appears that a Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014 (Dr. Rajkumar Singh Vs. Rakhi Chauhan) was decreed exparte on 09.04.2015 and for setting aside the above exparte decree, the defendant-wife had filed the above Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023, which has been rejected by the impugned order of the Family Court.

It is apparent that the above impugned order is not an interlocutory order because the proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No.1489 of 2014 are not pending before any court. Similarly, the Civil Misc. Case No.46 of 2023 has also been disposed by the impugned order. It is also apparent that under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984, 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. Further, as per Section 19(6) of the above Act, an appeal preferred under sub section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting two or more judges.

It is apparent that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order

FAFO No. 2474 of 2025

2

which has been passed by the Family Court Firozabad, as such, according to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, an appeal under Section 19 of that Act lies but the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of C.P.C., which is not legally maintainable.

In the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he wants to withdraw this appeal for filing it before the appropriate court.

In view of the above position of law, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.

8. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Office is directed to return the original documents to the learned counsel for the appellant after keeping a photo copy on record.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

October 29, 2025 Himanshu

Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad