IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.648 of 2008 DR.VIVEKANAND SHARMA Versus SMT. MANORAMA RAI @ AMRITA ----------- 6. 10.2.2009. Appellant had preferred this appeal as First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court’s Act. The Stamp Reporter did not object to the maintainability of the appeal as First Appeal but when the matter was taken up on 23rd September, 2008, it was observed that a Miscellaneous Appeal would lie. Accordingly, the appellant converted the First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal. When the matter is taken up, Mr. S.S.Dvivedi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the attention of the Court was though drawn to an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Saha Vs. Ritu Kala Saran 2008 (2) PLJR 211 but unfortunately, the provision of Section 18 of the Family Court’s Act was not brought. He points out that in the case of Raj Kumar Saha (supra,) the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: ‘’2. According to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it appears that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court 2 to the High Court both on facts and on law. It further appears that the orders passed by Family Court is in the form of a decree. Obviously, therefore, a decree drawn in a suit can be tested by this court in a First Appeal and not in miscellaneous appeal.” In view of aforesaid, order dated 23rd September, 2008 is recalled and this appeal be treated as First Appeal. The Registrar General shall apprise the Stamp Reporter about this order and he will process this appeal and other appeals in the light of this order. List it under the appropriate heading in the next week. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma)