M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. This is a revision application Under Section 115 CPC against the order of the judge, Family Court dated 24.1.1995 passed on non-petitioner's application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Marriage Act).
2. The husband-petitioner filed before the Family Court, Ajmer a petition Under Section 13 of the Marriage Act against the wife-non-petitioner seeking dissolution of his marriage with the non-petitioner by a decree of divorce. After putting her appearance before the Court the wife/non-petitioner moved an application Under Section 24 of the Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 500/- per month for herself and @ Rs. 300/- per month for her minor child plus travelling expenses per date of hearing and litigation expenses. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on such application, the judge, Family Court granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 500/- per month, Rs. 700/- per trip from Hissar to Ajmer and litigation expenses at Rs. 1500/-. Aggrieved by such order of the learned Judge, the husband-petitioner has filed this revision application.
3. At the very outset Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned Counsel for the non- applicant, raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of this revision application Under Section 115 CPC. The learned Counsel submitted that Section 19 r/w Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 contemplatesanappeal only from the judgment or order passed by a Family Court. In this behalf he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of S.K. Pareek v. Smt. Shubh Laxnti Pareek, RLR 1988(2)372.
4. In reply Mr. B.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that me Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1971 has extended the scope of jurisdiction of this Court and a revision application is now maintainable Under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
5. Section 19 provides for the remedies available to the aggrieved party against the judgment or order passed by a Family Court. This section, after its amendment by Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991, reads as under :
'19. 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 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 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 and 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, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.
(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.'
6. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 19 shows that whereas Sub-section 1 provides for appeals against the judgment or order passed by a Family Court, Sub-section (4) gives the right to the aggrieved party to prefer a revision also against an order passed by such a Court. It is thus quite clear that the remedies of appeal and revision against the judgment or order have been envisaged by Section 19. The question for consideration, however, is if both these rights co-exist and are exercisable at the option of the aggrieved party. Or they are alternate to each other leaving an option to the aggrieved party to choose the Forum for the redressal of his grievance. To my mind, both the remedies are neither co-existent nor alternate to each other but are mutually exclusive and have been clearly categorised by the Legislature.
7. A close reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 would show that the right of appeal to an aggrieved party has been given against those types of judgment or order of the Family Court in respect of which the jurisdiction was exercisable by a District Court or a Subordinate Civil Court only. Likewise, Sub-section (4) provides for the remedy of revision against such orders passed by the Family Court in respect of which jurisdiction was exercisable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It may thus be held that there is clear cut categorisation and classification of the judgments or orders in respect of which either of the two remedies, whether of an appeal or of a revision, is available to the aggrieved party. If a judgment or order passed by a Family Court falls within the purview of the category mentioned in Sub- section (1) of Section 19 an appeal and not a revision would lie. But if the order passed by such Court is of the nature as is contemplated by Sub-section (4), then a right of revision against such order would be available to the aggrieved party. This categorisation or classification of the remedies available to the aggrieved party against the judgment or order passed by the Family Court seems to be based on the remedies available earlier to the aggrieved party in the relevant enactments.
8. Section 7 speaks of the sources of jurisdiction of the Family Court to pass judgments or orders under the provisions of the Family Courts Act. Section 8 excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts in the matters which fall within the jurisdictional provision of the Family Court, namely Section 7. The two Sections may be reproduced here :
'7. Jurisdiction-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall:
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a District Court or, as the case may be, such Subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation :- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely :-
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the 'case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, as Family Court shall also have and exercise :-
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings :- Where a Family Court has been established for any area,-
(a) no District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court referred to in Sub- section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section;
(b) no Magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) every suitor proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any District Court or Subordinate Court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under the said Code; and
(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established,
shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established.'
A combined reading of the two sections reveals that there are two sources of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. One has its origin in those types of suits and cases the jurisdiction in which was earlier exercisable by a District Court or Subordinate Civil Court, the other in these cases wherein jurisdiction was earlier exercisable by a Magistrate First Class under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Whereas Sub-section (1) of Section 7 talks of former source of jurisdiction of the Family Court and the explanation to that sub-section specifies the categories of the suits and cases contemplated in Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) deals with the later source. This difference and distinction of the two sources of jurisdiction of a Family Court has again been re-asserted in Section 8 by excluding the jurisdiction of the District Court or Subordinate Civil Court in the suits or cases contemplated in Section 7(1) and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, 1st Class in cases mentioned in Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act. Again the distinction in the two sources has also affected the Forum for the redressalof the grievance of aggrieved party. If the Family Court has passed a judgment or made an order in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 7(1) read with Section 8(1), then an appeal would lie Under Section 19(1). But, if the jurisdiction by the Family Court has been exercised in a matter falling with, the province of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 read with Section 8(2), then the remedy of revision Under Section 19(4) would be available to the aggrieved party. It would thus be seen that the availability of the remedy of either of an appeal Under Section 19(1) or of a revision Under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Family Court in a given case. If the suit or case before the Family Court was of the nature detailed in explanation to Section 7(1) and in which jurisdiction was exercisableby a District Court or a Subordinate Civil Court under the relevant statute or enactment, then the judgment or order passed by the Family Court would give rise to an appeal Under Section 19(1) to the aggrieved party and no revision Under Section 19(4) against such judgment or order would be maintainable. However, if the Family Court has passed an order in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 7(2), then a right of revision Under Section 19(4) and not of an appeal Under Section 19(1) would be available to the aggrieved party.
The classification of the remedies in Section 19 and their dependence upon the sources of jurisdiction of the Family Court Under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act have their origin in the nature of the rights of the concerned persons and the remedies available to them in various and different statutes. Sections 24,25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 give rights of maintenance to the concerned persons and the Forum of redressal of grievance against orders passed under those provisions was by way of an appeal Under Section 28 of the said Act to a Civil Court. Likewise, the Forum provided against orders passed under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 was also by way of suit and appeal to a Civil Court. Such rights would confer jurisdiction Under Section 7(1) of Family Courts Act on the Family Court and an appeal would lie Under Section 19(1) against judgment/orders passed Under Section 7(1). The rights of maintenance of a Muslim woman, children, parents and grand parents were recognised under the Mohammedon Law and the Forum prescribed for the redressal of such rights was by way of an application Under Section 488 (now Section 125) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The jurisdiction in respect of such matters would now lie Under Section 7(2) of the Family Court and the orders passed thereunder would be revisable Under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Similarly, jurisdiction Under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was exercisable by a Magistrate under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954. Such jurisdiction would now lie with the Family Court Under Section 7(2) and an order passed by it under that provision would be revisable Under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Similarly the nature of the rights of maintenance of persons and marriages covered by the Special Marriage Act, 1955 and other similar enactments relating to the cases of the members of other different communities and the Forum of exercise of such rights and for redressal of grievences may be known from the provisions of other statutes and the source of the jurisdiction of the Family Court Under Section 7 can be determined. Thus, the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Family Court Under Section 7 would determine the Forum of redressal of grievence Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
11. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed by the Family Court in exercise of its power Under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. Section 19(1) provides for an appeal against the order passed in exercise of its jurisdiction by the Family Court Under Section 7(1). No revision Under Section 19(4) is, therefore, maintainable against the impugned order.
12. The petition moved Under Section 115 CPC by the petitioner could have been treated, in the interest of justice, as an appeal Under Section 9(1), but for the obvious reason that it was not filed within a period of 30 days from the date of impugned order, as prescribed Under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act. As held in the cited case, and I fully agree with that view, the impugned order which has been passed Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be termed as an interlocutory order for the purposes of expression used in the language of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. Even on merits of the case, I see no justification in taking a view different from that taken by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to ignore the Forum and period of limitation in order to do substantial justice to the parties.
13. In the result, since the impugned order was passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in exercise of his powers Under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act and an appeal and not a revision lies Under Section 19(1) against such order, this revision petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such, with Rs. 500/- as cost to the wife non/petitioner.