KAMAL KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Rajeev Misra, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal before this Court. According to him, the decree under challenge is a decree for dissolution of marriage passed u/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). It is therefore, appealable u/s.28 of the Act as the decree of the court made in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. He submits that in view of it, the appeal would lie u/s.96 C.P.C. Since the valuation of the suit and the instant appeal is Rs.1000/- only, which is less than Rs.5 lacs, therefore, the appeal would lie before the District Judge, and not to this Court.

(2.) Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, counsel for appellant, refuting the contentions made by Sri Rajeev Misra, submitted that the appeal has been filed u/s.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'Family Courts Act") and therefore, in view of section 19(1) and (6), it would lie before the High Court and is to be heard by a Division Bench consisting of two or more judges. He thus contends that it has been rightly filed before this court and is perfectly maintainable. He further submits that even if the decree is not by the Family Court, as no such court has been established at Jaunpur, but in view of object of the said legislation and particularly sections 7, 8, 19, 20 and 21, the judgement under challenge should be treated to be that of the Family Court, otherwise, it would amount to discrimination between the litigant initiating proceedings in cases where the Family Courts have been established, vis-a-vis the appellant. He has placed reliance on the following judgements :-

(3.) We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.