IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.175 of 2010 PARBATI DEVI Versus AM PUBLIC VILLAGE KASER & ORS. ----------- 02. 14.09.2010 (1) The learned counsel, Sri Arbind Nath Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Full Bench decision reported in 2009, Volume 3 PLJR, Page 990, Sunita Kumari vs. Prem Kumar is not applicable because Full Bench decision is delivered in relation to maintainability of First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. (2) From perusal of the Full Bench decision, it appears that the Full Bench has considered the provision of Section 19 of the Family Court Act. Section 19 of the said Act provide for appeal from a judgment and order. The Full Bench also considered various decisions and held that First Appeal is not maintainable. It is better to re-produce Paragraph 13 of the said decision. “13. If it is held that appeals under Section 19 have to be treated as First Appeal then it would follow that provision for appeal under Section 19 is not available in respect of orders which do not amount to a decree although they may not be interlocutory orders as is the nature of impugned order in M.A. No. 191 of 2009. Such interpretation would be against the intention of the Legislature which is evident from plain meaning of expressions used in Section 19 of the Act. The omission of the word “decree” from Section 19(1) is clearly intentional and deliberate and there is no need to incorporate the word “decree” into that Section of the Act by way of interpretation. Section 19 of the Act 2 requires no interpretation because it neither suffers from any vagueness nor creates a situation of unwarranted hardship or injustice. To the contrary labeling the appeals under Section 19 of the Act as Miscellaneous Appeals would serve one of the purposes of the Act which is to secure speedy settlement of dispute relating to marriages and family affairs. The provisions in the Patna High Court Rules governing First Appeals are much more detailed and formal than those governing Miscellaneous Appeals. The cause of justice as per requirement of the Act is also best subserved by the view expressed above. (3) Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act reads as follows: “299. Appeals from orders of District Judge-Every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Courts in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), applicable to appeals.” (4) In this section also, the word decree is missing. Therefore, it appears that the provision as contained in Section 19 of the Family Court Act is similar to that of the provision as contained in Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act. In such view of the matter, this Full Bench decision is applicable in this case and Miscellaneous Appeal is maintainable. (5) The appellant is directed to convert this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal within two weeks and if it is not converted into the Miscellaneous Appeal, this First Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)