SUMITHRA DEVI Vs. G VENKATESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Smt. Geetha Menon for Smt. M. N. Pramila Nesargi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Raju for Mr. K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THIS civil revision under Section 115 of C. P. C. has been preferred by the respondent before the Appellate Court from the order of the Family Court dated 18. 4. 1994 allowing the amendment of the petition for divorce in which in alternative the petitioner has sought a decree for judicial separation on the basis of same facts and allegations that have been contained in the petition for divorce. The amendment sought has been quoted in paragraph 1 of the order of the Court below. If the relief for judicial separation has also been claimed in alternative to the decree for divorce on the basis of same facts and allegations, it may at the most amount to an additional approach to the same facts and additional relief on same facts and so it could not be said to be amounting to a new case and the Court below has rightly held that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the present petitioner who had been respondent before the Family Court.

(3.) LOOKING to the approach, I do not find that the order impugned is such that it may require interference even either under Article 227, what to say of petition under Section 115. As regards revision from the order of the Family Court, the revision itself is not maintainable from the order of the Family Court in view of Sub-section (5) of Section 19. Section 19 reads as under :