RABI KUMAR CHHABRA Vs. GINIRANI CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application arises out of an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) STAMP Reporter has pointed out that in view of Sub -section (2) of Section 19 of the Act being amended, this appeal is not maintainable. Stamp Reporter is correct. To avoid the stamp report, an application has been filed stating that this appeal be converted to a revision. Now, the office has called upon the appellant to file a second copy of the petition. A second copy is called for when the matter is to be heard by a Division Bench. Possibly, on account of the provision under Section 19 (1) and (6) of the Act that the appeal would be heard by a Division Bench, this second copy has been called for to be filed.

(3.) SECTION 19(2) provides that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sub -section (6) provides that an appeal under Sub -section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges. Once before admission an application has been filed to convert it to a revision as no appeal lies against such an order, the application is not required to be heard by a Division Bench. It can be heard by a Single Judge. Mere nomenclature would not create a jurisdiction. It is true that in case this appeal is converted to a revision, the memorandum of appeal should also be converted in the form of a revision as prescribed under the Rules of the Orissa High Court. To allow correction of memorandum of appeal already presented, would make it clumsy. Accordingly, when I find that without noticing the amendment an appeal was filed under Section 19(1) as per the old provision before the amendment, it is a fit case where the application is to be allowed and the appeal is to be converted to a revision. The Misc. Case is, therefore, allowed.