IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1615 of 2007 DR.VISHAL VANMALIa son of Dr. Narendra Kumar Gupta, resident of village Khaira, P.O. Waini, P.S. Waini, District Samastipur…. Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. SMT.KANCHAN BALA wife of Dr. Vishal Vanmali, resident of Flat No. 104, Vidya Apartment, Chitragupta Nagar, Kankarbagh, Postal Park, P.S. Patrakarnagar, District Patna, present posted as Commercial Tax Officer, West Circle, Patna City, Patna, presently posted as Commercial Tax Officer on Transfer at Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur during pendency of this civil revision application, 2.Most Ranjani Gupta wife of late Kalidas Gupta(mother of opposite party no. 2), residing at Flat No. 104, Vidya Apartment, Chitragupta Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S. Patrakarnagar, Town & District Patna, …Defendants/Opposite Parties For the Petitioner:Mr.Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For O.P. No. 1 : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate ----------- 8 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the specific bar created by the provisions as contained in Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the civil revision would not be maintainable. However, it is urged that the order under challenge is a final one passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, disposing of the matrimonial case filed for restitution of conjugal rights 2 and as such, appeal would be available under section 19(1) of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sunita Kumari and another v. Prem Kumar and others, reported in 2009(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 990, wherein it has been held that the scope of section 19(1) of the Act is wide enough not only to include a decree, but to every order and decree passed by the Family Court, which has been provided in the aforesaid provisions itself and has not been excluded by that. Learned counsel further submits that since the order impugned is not an interlocutory order, there would not be any doubt that appeal would be available to the petitioner. Thus, it is urged that since this civil revision is not maintainable, the petitioner may be allowed to convert the same into a Miscellaneous Appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 raises no objection to that. In the above view of the matter, I hold that this civil revision would not be maintainable. However, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I accept the prayer of the petitioner 3 for conversion of this civil revision into a Miscellaneous Appeal. Let the petitioner take steps for conversion of the civil revision into a Miscellaneous Appeal within two weeks, failing which it shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)