Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 307 of 2019
Appellant :- Santoshi
Respondent :- Krishna Kumar
Counsel for Appellant :- Yatish Kumar Dwivedi,Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Santoshi u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the compromise decree.
Stamp Reporter has reported that the appeal is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant's signature on compromise on the basis of which compromise decree has been passed was forged and hence, this appeal is maintainable.
We do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of Section 19 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which runs as hereunder :-
Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 :
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 (2of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgement 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].
Since sub-section (2) of Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that 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), this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
However, this order shall not preclude the appellant from pursuing any other remedy which may be available to him under the law of the land under the impugned compromise decree.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 KS