SANTOSH HILORI Vs. JAI PRAKASH HILORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer of a matrimonial matter in Case No. 418 of 1991 (Jai Prakash Hilori v. Smt. Santosh Hilori, from the Family Court at Meerut to the Court of Civil Judge at Muzaffanagar. The grounds for the proposed transfer are that the Family Court has failed to observe the statutory directions concerning an endeavour to settle the matter amicably and it was under the influence of the opposite party who happens to be an Income Tax Commissioner. The applicant apprehended that she could not get fair trial at Meerut in the Family Court. It was further contended that the applicant had filed a maintenance case against the respondent-husband under Section 125, Cr.P.C. at Muzaffamagar and the case is pending and it was desirable that the two matters be heard together. It appears from the application that the matrimonial suit between the parties was originally filed at Kanpur. The applicant moved for transfer under Section 24, C.P.C. and the High Court had directed on 2.2.1996 in Civil Misc. Application No. 57 of 1993 that the case be heard at Meerut. Since then the Meerut Court is exercising jurisdiction in the matter.

(2.) It is now stated that after receipt of the record on transfer, the Family Court at Meerut had fixed a further date for reconciliation and directed the parties to come with their relations. The husband was also directed to bring the children so that the wife could meet them. There was a further direction that the amount of alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act be paid to the wife. On the date fixed, however, the husband was absent and the suit was dismissed for .default. On a subsequent petition moved by him, the suit was restored and forgetting the earlier orders the Family Court fixed a short date for filing the written statement. The husband had failed to pay the alimony and the arrears of the maintenance in time and the order of the Family Court fixing the date of written statement was passed hastily. The family Court had rejected the prayer of the present applicant made under Order 6 Rule 5, C.P.C. asking certain better particulars from the husband. It was contended that the Judge of the family Court was under influence of the husband and the offering as seat to him in side his Chambers. It was contended that the case under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicant against the other party was pending at Muzaffarnagar. It was contended that the Family Court's orders were not open to revision and the only way out was to have the case transferred from Meerut. By a supplementary affidavit it was stated that the applicant was threatened by unknown persons, who are the men of the husband and it was not safe for her to have the case heard at Meerut.

(3.) So far the grievances against the judicial order are concerned it is true that no revision lie against an order of the Family Court but a bare reading of Section 19 of the Family Court Act indicates that an appeal is provided for from every order not being an interlocutory order. Section reads-19. Appeal-(1) save as provided in Sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, no being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.