JUDGMENT D. S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash. learned counsel appearing for Sri Rakesh Kumar Shandilya. the applicant.
2. The applicant filed In the Court of Family Court, Meerut, a petition for divorce against Smt. Renu, the opposite-party, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), being Case No. 55 of 1997. The opposite party moved an application under Section 24 of the Act which has been allowed by the Family Court vide its order dated 3rd October, 1997. Against this order the applicant has filed instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the Code).
3. The Stamp Reporter of the Court made a report dated 24th October, 1997 to the effect that the instant revision is not maintainable. Thereupon, the question of maintainability of revision received consideration of a learned single Judge.
4. Before the learned single Judge, it appears, the learned counsel for the applicant took the stand that revision was maintainable. To buttress the stand, he placed reliance upon the decision of an other learned single Judge rendered in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Meena, 1996 ACJ 718.
5. In the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Meena (supra), the revision was entertained but it was dismissed on merits. The learned single Judge taking note of the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 felt that the revision was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge deemed it desirable that the question of maintainability of the revision be considered by a larger Bench and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate order for constituting a larger Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 26th December, 1997 directed the matter to be listed before a Bench presided by one of us (D. S. Sinha. J.). Thus, the matter is before this Bench.
6. The Court has carefully read the judgment rendered in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Meena, (supra), but has not been able to discover any adjudication on the question of maintainability of a revision under Section 115 of the Code against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act. Indeed, the question of maintainability of the revision does not appear to have been raised by any party. It is true that the revision was decided on merits implying that it was entertained but the factum of entertaining the revision can by no stretch of imagination be taken as a binding precedent for the proposition that a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 21 of the Act Is maintainable.
7. Therefore. In the opinion of the Court, the decision in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Meena (supra), cannot lend support to the submission of the learned counsel of the applicant that the Instant revision under Section 115 of the Code is maintainable. The reliance upon said decision by the learned counsel is misplaced.
8. Section 19 occurring in Chapter V of the Family Courts Act deals with the appeals and revisions against the Judgments and orders passed by the Family Court. It reads thus :
"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, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties (or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974) :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act. 1991.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for to examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings.
(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges."
(Underlined by the Court).
9. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act clearly bars any revision to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. The order impugned in the instant revision, indisputably, is an order passed by a Family Court as contemplated in Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. subsection (5) whereof excludes the remedy of revision before any Court against any Judgment, order or a decree of a Family Court.
10. For what has been said above, the Court is of the opinion that instant revision is not maintainable, being barred by sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act ; and that the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 24th October, 1997 is correct.
11. Let this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate order for remitting the case to the learned single Judge.