The High Court held that the Family Court Appeal was not maintainable under Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as it pertained to a Section 125 CrPC order. The court dismissed the appeal but kept the remedy under Section 19(4) open.
Dismissed the appeal as not maintainable; kept the remedy under Section 19(4) open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vikrant 1/1 18-FAC-55-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2016
Mr. Conred Joaquim d'souza ... Appellant Vs. Mrs. Teresa Joaquim D'souza ... Respondent ......
None present for the Parties.
CORAM : A. S. OKA &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 06th December, 2016
P.C. :
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
whether a Family Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the 7th Family Court under Section 125 CrPC.
whether the remedy lies under Section 19(2) or Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MR. CONRED JOAQUIM D'SOUZA
MRS. TERESA JOAQUIM D'SOUZA
A. S. OKA
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
