IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.733 of 2009 SMT.PARUL BAIROLIYA Versus DEEPAK KUMAR BAIROLIYA ----------- 2/ 14.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The present Civil Revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Misc. Case No. 51 of 2008 whereby the learned Judge refused to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.10.2008 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 116 of 2008 by which he had dissolved the marriage of the petitioner to Deepak Kumar Bairoliya by passing a decree of dissolution of marriage. If one could peruse the provision of section 19 of the Family Courts Act, one could find that the provision creates dual jurisdiction – the appellate and revisional – both. By virtue of sub section (1) of section 19 of Family Courts Act, appellate forum is created for challenging any judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by a Family Court before the High Court both on facts and law. But when the order passed by the Family Court is under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the High Court exercises its revisional powers by virtue of section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Had the petitioner challenged the order passed ex parte on dissolution of the marriage, then she would have to file an appeal in the light of section 19 of the Family Courts Act which had to be heard by a Division Bench of this court in the light of section 19(6) of the - 2 - Family Courts Act. As indicated above, the petitioner chose to file a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to seek setting aside the decree passed ex parte. That petition resulted in rejection of the same by order dated 2.3.2009 which is being impugned in the present revision petition. If one could go through Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, one could find that the impugned order is appealable order under section 104 of the Code and in the light of that provision also the petitioner was ardent to prefer an appeal which could be preferred only under section 19 of the Family Courts Act. I find as such that this revision petition is not maintainable. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to convert the present petition into a memo of appeal. He is permitted to do it in ten days time whereafter the same shall be listed after obtaining orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)