Case Note & Summary
The appellant-wife, Dr. Sarika Akshay Ranade, filed a Family Court Appeal against orders passed by the Family Court No.5, Pune, on various applications during the pendency of Marriage Petition PA No.459 of 2010 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The impugned orders were passed on Exh. 77 (application for appointment of Commissioner) on 16th December 2014, Exh. 285 (application for maintenance under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act) on 18th July 2016, Exh. 391 (application for amendment) on 8th August 2016, and Exh. 403 (application under Sections 18, 19(8), 20, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) on 22nd August 2016. The Family Court partly allowed Exh. 285 by granting interim maintenance to the daughter and rejected all other applications. The main marriage petition was dismissed on 16th December 2016. The appellant-wife filed the present appeal after the dismissal of the main petition, challenging the interim orders. The court noted that the appellant had not taken exception to the interim orders during the pendency of the petition or at any earlier point of time before the dismissal. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the main petition had already been dismissed and the appellant had not challenged the interim orders at the appropriate time. The court dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Interim Orders - Maintainability of Appeal - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 24, 25, 26 - The appellant-wife challenged interim orders passed during the pendency of a marriage petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after the main petition was dismissed. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the appellant had not challenged the interim orders during the pendency of the petition or before its dismissal, and the main petition had already been dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal against interim orders passed during the pendency of a marriage petition is maintainable after the main petition has been dismissed and the appellant did not challenge the interim orders at any earlier stage.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable as the main petition had already been dismissed and the appellant had not challenged the interim orders during the pendency of the petition or at any earlier point of time.
Law Points
- Interim orders
- maintainability of appeal after dismissal of main petition
- delay in challenging interim orders
- Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 69
Family Court Appeal No.122 of 2019
R. D. Dhanuka, V. G. Bisht
Mr. Abhijit Sarwate for the Appellant, Mr. Omkar Paranjape for the Respondent
Dr. Mrs. Sarika Akshay Ranade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Family Court Appeal against interim orders passed during pendency of marriage petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-wife sought to challenge the orders passed by the Family Court on various applications during the pendency of the marriage petition.
Filing Reason
The appellant-wife was aggrieved by the Family Court's orders partly allowing maintenance to the daughter and rejecting other applications.
Previous Decisions
The Family Court partly allowed the application at Exh. 285 to the extent of granting interim maintenance to the daughter and rejected all other applications. The main marriage petition was dismissed on 16th December 2016.
Issues
Whether the appeal against interim orders is maintainable after the dismissal of the main petition.
Whether the appellant's delay in challenging the interim orders is fatal.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-wife argued that the interim orders were erroneous and should be set aside.
The respondent-husband argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the main petition had been dismissed and the appellant had not challenged the interim orders earlier.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal against interim orders passed during the pendency of a marriage petition is not maintainable after the main petition has been dismissed, especially when the appellant did not challenge the interim orders at any earlier stage.
Judgment Excerpts
This Family Court Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Family Court No.5, Pune on Exh. 77 (application for appointment of Commissioner) on 16th December 2014, Exh. 285 (application for maintenance and other reliefs under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Hindu Marriage, 1955) on 18th July 2016, Exh. 391 (application for amendment) on 8th August 2016 and on Exh. 403 (application under Sections 18, 19(8), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) on 22nd August 2016.
It is only after dismissal of the petition, the appellant-wife by way of present appeal is now assailing the impugned orders although those orders came to be passed on various dates, as noted hereinabove, that is during the pendency of the petition and admittedly exception to those orders were never taken during the pendency or at any earlier point of time before the dismissal of main petition or when the petition was very much on record before the Family Court.
Procedural History
The respondent-husband filed Marriage Petition PA No.459 of 2010 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During its pendency, the appellant-wife filed various applications (Exh. 77, 285, 391, 403) which were disposed of by the Family Court on different dates. The main petition was dismissed on 16th December 2016. The appellant-wife then filed the present Family Court Appeal on 2019 against the interim orders.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 9, 24, 25, 26
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 18, 19(8), 20, 22
