||EIS 0^/c,7 IN TBS «iG«(XWRT OF CSHATRSQAStS jaDrCATCRB AT BILASPVR W.P.tCt N0.^^/3007 PETmONER:- .**"».-• ,.^a,^'° RESPONDENTS:- ^ Kumari UshaDhuri , P/o Late Shri Ramadhar Dhuri Aged about 18 Years, Resident of Village- Amora, Tahsil- Mungeli District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versits ^ 1. Naraywn Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramad.kar Dhuri, Aged about 34 years, Resident of Near Nivedita School Sagarpara Banjw Chowk, Devbaloda Tahsil Patan District' Durg (C.G.) (^ 2. Senior Personnal Officer, D.R.M. Office, South Eastem Central RaSways, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.} /3. General Manager Railways, ^- D.R.M. Office South Eastem Central RaSways, Bilcispur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) y4. State of Chhattisgarh Thrau.gh Collector BQaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) © ^"y WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLS 227 OF THE COVS'riTUTION OF 1NDIA HIGH^CQURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Slnale Ben*h: Hon'bleShri Justlce Prashant KumarlVllshra Writ Petition (C.l No.3274 of 2007 Petitioner Respondents vereus Kumari Usha Dhuri Narayan Prasad and others Present: Shri Atul Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.1. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORALORDER (Passed on 29th January, 2010) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties finally. . 2. The order underchallenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a final order passed by the Family Court, Durg in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.44/2006 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1 890. 3. The jurisdiction of the Famity Court has been provided under Section 7ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth the Act, 1984'). Explanation (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 ofthe Act, 1984 covers a suit or prbceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, as suits or proeeedings of the nature forwhich the Family Court shall havejurisdiction. ^ -.2.' .£. 4. Any final order passed by the Family Court, for which it has jurisdiction, is appealable under Section 19 of the Act, 1984. Section 19 of the Act, 1 984 reads as under: "19. Appeal.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2)and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent ofthe parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Cpurt or any order passed under Chapter IX ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. (4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record ofany proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness,. legality or propriety ofthe order, not being an interlQcutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding. (5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall II? to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. B KS (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges." 5. ln view ofthe above provisioncontained in Section 19 ofthe Act, 1984, it is apparent that there is an alternative remedy available tQ the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1984. Such appeal is cognizable by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges of the High Court. 6. In the result, the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed as not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. I Sd/1- I prashairtKumarMishra 1 Judge Sopal