The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227. The court held that since an effective remedy of appeal exists under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for the order impugned, the revision petition was not maintainable.
Revision petition rejected; order returned to registry to enable petitioner to pursue appeal.
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3574 OF 2013
Dated: 02.08.2013
| Between: | |
|---|---|
| Smt. Rama Soorabathula | .. Petitioner |
| And | |
| Narendra Soorabathula and another |
.. Respondents |
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3574 OF 2013
ORDER:
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court dated 04.06.2013, whereunder FCOP.No.253 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioner was returned by the Court below for want of territorial jurisdiction.
An objection has been raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the revision petition since an efficacious remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
On a reading of Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’), it is clear that 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.
By the order under revision since the O.P. itself was returned for presentation before the proper Court, in my considered opinion, the Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
Though in the office objection it is mentioned that against the order under revision an appeal is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., it is made clear that the appeal lies under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 but not Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C.
Accordingly office objection is upheld and the registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order under revision to enable the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy.
____________ G.ROHINI, J
Date: 02.08.2013 Ivd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition under Article 227 is maintainable when an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is available against the impugned order.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Rama Soorabathula
Narendra Soorabathula
G.ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
