In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has emphasized that appeals against Family Court orders must be filed strictly under the provisions of the Family Court Act, 1984, and not under the Criminal Procedure Code or its equivalent in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The decision was delivered by Justice Abdul Moin in the case of Jitendra Kumar Lakhmani v. State of U.P. & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3030 of 2024), highlighting the precedence of specialized family legislation over general procedural laws.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, Jitendra Kumar Lakhmani, sought to challenge an order dated July 24, 2024, issued by the Family Court, which rejected his application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 380 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Section 340 of the Code deals with procedures for cases involving perjury and false evidence. Lakhmani’s grievance was that the Family Court had improperly dismissed his application, which he contended warranted legal scrutiny.
Representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. He argued that under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, any appeal against a Family Court order must be filed according to the procedures laid out in the Act itself, rather than under the Criminal Procedure Code or the updated Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legal Issues Involved:
The core legal issue revolved around the correct procedural law under which the appeal should be filed:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal: Whether the appellant could challenge the Family Court’s order under the Criminal Procedure Code or its modern equivalent, or whether the appeal was exclusively required to be filed under the Family Court Act, 1984.
2. Scope and Applicability of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984: Section 19 of the Family Court Act provides that appeals against Family Court orders should be filed under this specific Act. It also has a non-obstante clause, meaning it overrides conflicting provisions in other laws, including the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Nature of Orders under Section 340 of the Code: The court had to determine whether an order passed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a Family Court constitutes an ‘interlocutory order’ or a ‘final order’ for the purposes of appeal.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Abdul Moin, while examining the legal issues, highlighted the comprehensive nature of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. The court noted that this section includes a non-obstante clause, explicitly stating that appeals against Family Court orders must be filed under its provisions, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law.
The court referenced the Full Bench judgment in the case of Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava and the Supreme Court’s decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben (AIR 1981 SC 1786). These rulings clarified that an order passed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not an interlocutory order but a final one. Hence, it qualifies as an appealable order under the Family Court Act, 1984.
The court held that, given the explicit provisions of Section 19, the Family Court Act, 1984, which is a special law, takes precedence over the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, the appellant’s decision to file the appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code was improper, and the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.
Court’s Decision:
After considering the legal arguments, Justice Abdul Moin ruled that the appellant’s appeal could not be entertained under the Criminal Procedure Code or BNSS, 2023. Recognizing the appellant’s subsequent request to withdraw the appeal, the court allowed him to withdraw it with liberty to pursue any other legal remedies available under the law. This decision reinforces the legal principle that specialized statutes like the Family Court Act govern family law matters, ensuring procedural clarity.
Case Details:
– Case Name: Jitendra Kumar Lakhmani v. State of U.P. & Another
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3030 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Abdul Moin
– Appellant: Jitendra Kumar Lakhmani
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow, and another.
– Counsel for Appellant: Appeared in person
– Counsel for Respondent: Sri Piyush Kumar Singh (AGA)
