Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 975 (ALL)

Vinod Nath Tiwari @ Vinod Tiwari v. Jogeshwari

2016-03-16

RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1984") has arisen from the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Matrimonial Case No. 189 of 2014, rejecting two applications filed by applicant-appellant in aforesaid suit filed by plaintiff-respondent. 3. By means of first application (paper No. 13-C) appellant requested Court below to initiate criminal proceedings against plaintiff since the claim set up by her is fictitious. The matter is yet to be decided and, therefore, pre-judging the issue, no such application was maintainable, hence the same has been rejected. 4. The second application is paper No. 17-C, whereby request of appellant to recall order dated 16.10.2015 has been rejected. Vide order dated 16.10.2015 Court below has closed mediation proceedings and directed parties to proceed in suit and defendant-appellant was directed to file written statement. This order also does not adjudicate rights of parties in any manner. 5. Under Section 19 of Act, 1984 no appeal lies against an order which is interlocutory in nature. In order to decide as to what an interlocutory order is, it has to be seen, whether the order is purely interim or temporary in nature, does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. An order which substantially affects rights of parties or decides certain rights is not an interlocutory order. Interlocutory orders are purely procedural orders which do not affect rights and liabilities of parties and are steps towards the process of final adjudication. An interlocutory order merely regulates procedure and does not affect rights or liabilities. Recently the term "interlocutory order" in the context of Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Jagannath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2014(8) ADJ 439 . 6. In the present case, both the orders, in the light of aforesaid exposition, we find satisfy the term "interlocutory order" and, therefore, appeal under Section 19 of Act, 1984 is not maintainable. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.