ARVIND KISHORE Vs. NEHA MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Office in this appeal has pointed out a defect that in view of Section 19(3) of the Family Court Act, 1984, period of limitation for filing appeal against the judgment of the Family Court is 30 days and the present appeal is barred by limitation having been filed with delay of 57 days.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited order dated 26.7.2017 passed by this Court in Smt. Anita Chaudhary Vs. Rajesh Chaudhary, (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2586/2017) wherein also the Registry of this Court, taking note of Section 19(3) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') which prescribes period of 30 days for filing of the appeal, pointed out delay in filing of that appeal but considering provisions of Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') which postulates period of 90 days for filing of the appeal against any decree or order passed under the provisions of the Act of 1955, this Court directed that the appeal be considered as competent having been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 has noticed this anomaly and observed that period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 28(4) is apparently inadequate which facilitates the frustration of the marriages by the unscrupulous litigant spouses. In a vast country like ours, the powers under the Act are generally exercisable by the District Court and the first appeal has to be filed in the High Court. The distance, the geographical conditions, the financial position of the parties and the time period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal is insufficient and inadequate. In the absence of appeal, the other party can solemnise the marriage and attempt to frustrate the appeal right of the other side. A minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing the appeal against any judgment and decree under the Act and any marriage solemnised during the aforesaid period be deemed to be void. The Supreme Court further observed that appropriate legislation is required to be made in this regard. The Registry of the Supreme Court was directed to forward a copy of that judgment to the Ministry of Law and Justice for such action as it may deem fit to take in this behalf.