01Facts
The bunch of appeals were filed assailing various orders passed by Family Courts under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
¶ 1The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that such orders are "interlocutory" and thus barred from appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
¶ 1While a 2018 Full Bench in Kavita Vyas v. Deepak Dave held such appeals were maintainable, a subsequent Division Bench in 2022 (Amit Vyas v. Pramila) expressed doubt, noting the Full Bench failed to consider Supreme Court precedent (Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal) which classified Section 24 orders as interlocutory.
¶ 4-7Consequently, a reference to a Larger Bench was framed in 2022 but has yet to be constituted.
¶ 802Issues
i.1. Whether an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by a Family Court is an appealable order or an interlocutory order barred from appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
¶ 2, 7ii.2. What is the appropriate procedural remedy for litigants pending the resolution of an uncertain legal question by a Larger Bench?
¶ 11-1203Law Applied
The Court considered Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which restricts appeals against interlocutory orders.
¶ 1, 13The doctrine of per incuriam as summarized in Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma applies when a judgment overlooks binding statutory provisions or Supreme Court precedents.
¶ 6The High Court's plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions for the enforcement of rights and "for any other purpose".
¶ 14-15The "Master of the Roster" principle regarding the Chief Justice's administrative authority.
¶ 1604Reasoning
The Court observed that the jurisdiction to hear these appeals is currently clouded by "uncertainty" because the 2018 Full Bench ruling (allowing appeals) has been formally questioned by a 2022 reference to a Larger Bench.
¶ 8, 11Adhering to judicial discipline, the Division Bench determined it could not rule on the merits or maintainability while a reference on the same point is pending.
¶ 11Since Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act excludes Section 24 orders from revisional jurisdiction, the Court determined that exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was the most effective way to ensure expeditious disposal.
¶ 13, 1505Holding
The Court declined to rule on maintainability as an appeal, instead invoking Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure the cases are heard.
¶ 18The Court ordered the Registry to re-register the appeals as Single Bench writ petitions to be heard on their merits.
¶ 18It remanded the matters to the Registry for listing before the appropriate Bench, subject to the Acting Chief Justice's approval.
¶ 16, 18The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to bring the pending 2022 reference to the Acting Chief Justice's notice to expedite the constitution of the Larger Bench.
¶ 17Original Court PDF
ANIL JAINvsSMT. ANJALI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
