IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.217 of 2010 LALTI DEVI Versus KRISHNA MANJHI ----------- 02 30.03.2010 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view a recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Kumari Vs. Prem Kumar reported in 2009(4) BBCJ 131, this appeal should be held to be maintainable although it is against an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Stamp Reporter has, on the other hand, referred to a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 817 and has objected to the maintainability of this miscellaneous appeal. According to that judgment, against an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure the application has to be labelled as a revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Full Bench in the case of Sunita Kumari (supra) was concerned only with the issue whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act should be labelled as First Appeal or Miscellaneous Appeal and not with an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against such orders Section 19 (2) contains a clear provision that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 In view of such statutory provision the view of the Division Bench as noticed above has to be accepted as a proper view. Hence, the Stamp Reporter’s objection is sustained and learned counsel for the appellant is given ten days time, as prayed, to convert this appeal into revision application. Kundan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)