High Court Permits Treatment of Non-Maintainable Family Court Appeals as Writ Petitions for Expeditious Adjudication

The bunch of appeals were filed assailing various orders passed by Family Courts under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The 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.

While 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.

Consequently, a reference to a Larger Bench was framed in 2022 but has yet to be constituted.

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. What is the appropriate procedural remedy for litigants pending the resolution of an uncertain legal question by a Larger Bench?

The Court considered Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which restricts appeals against interlocutory orders.

The doctrine of per incuriam as summarized in Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma applies when a judgment overlooks binding statutory provisions or Supreme Court precedents.

The 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".

The "Master of the Roster" principle regarding the Chief Justice's administrative authority.

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.

Adhering 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.

Since 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.

The Court ordered the Registry to re-register the appeals as Single Bench writ petitions to be heard on their merits.

It remanded the matters to the Registry for listing before the appropriate Bench, subject to the Acting Chief Justice's approval.

The 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.