IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.950 of 2011 1. Hemanti Devi, W/O Sri Raushan Kumar, D/O Sri Hirawan Chaudhary R/O Village - Aurangpur, P.O. Khalilabad Netaul, P.S. Kadirganj, District – Patna…………………………………………Appellant Versus 1. Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Chaudhary S/O Sri Ramjiwan Chaudhary R/O Village - Dekuli, P.O. Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad…………………………………………………..Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 16.12.2011 The Stamp Reporter has objected to the maintainability of this appeal because the decree under appeal shows that it has been passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. Such order or decree cannot be appealed against in view of Section 19 (2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that actually there was no consent of the appellant-wife for decree of divorce and such consent which was obtained by fraud or other means should not be treated as consent for the purpose of Section 19 (2) of the Act. He also points out that the procedure adopted by the Family Court suffers from illegality or gross irregularity and after the conciliation failed, decree was passed on the same date. Whatever be the ground, it can be of no avail unless the appeal is maintainable. There is clear bar in Section 19 (2) of the Family Courts Act which provides in mandatory form that no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. In that view of the matter,the present appeal is held to be not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant sought liberty to pursue other remedies available to the appellant for raising all the grievances against the order and decree in question. It is made clear that the appellant shall have liberty to move the court below under review jurisdiction or to institute any other proceeding available to the appellant in accordance with law. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)