In FAO-3420 of 2022(O&M)-PUNJ HC- In terms of Sec.19 of Family Courts Act, no appeal against interlocutory order is maintainable: Punjab & Haryana HC
Justices Lisa Gill & Ritu Tagore [01-03-2023]

Read Order: SHRUTI CHOPRA VS AMIT NAGPAL 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 13, 2023: In an appeal instituted by the appellant-wife challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Family Court, in pending proceedings initiated by the appellant, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the question of interim restraint upon the respondent from continuing with divorce proceedings at U.S.A, at this stage does not arise when said proceedings admittedly culminated in a decree of divorce. 

The Division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ritu Tagore disposed of the instant appeal and said, “In terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, no appeal qua an interlocutory order is maintainable.”

The present appellant-wife instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for restraining the respondent-husband from proceeding against her in divorce proceedings initiated by him before the State of Connecticut, Superior Court, U.S.A. Appellant also sought a declaration that all proceedings, orders, directions, judgment, decree etc., passed by the Foreign Court be declared as null, void and unenforceable with a further prayer that any judgment, decree, order or direction passed in future by the Foreign Court be also declared as such. 

Initially, an interim order was passed by the Family Court, whereby the respondent was restrained from proceeding with the pending divorce petition filed by him in the U.S.A. However, as service upon the respondent was not affected, interim injunction was vacated on July 21, 2022 while recording that summons was not served in accordance with the provisions of law. 

Counsel for the respondent submitted that in-fact divorce was granted by the State of Connecticut Superior Court on August 23, 2022. Appellant proceeded ex parte therein. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that the counsel for the appellant was unable to deny that the impugned order dated July 21, 2022 was an interlocutory order. In terms of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, no appeal qua an interlocutory order is maintainable, the Bench held.

 Moreover, the question of interim restraint upon the respondent from continuing with divorce proceedings at U.S.A, at this stage when said proceedings were  admittedly culminated in a decree of divorce (though ex parte), does not arise, the Court noted. 

The Court found no justification in keeping the present appeal pending, at this stage. 

The Bench disposed of the appeal by observing, “It is however, directed that respondent shall appear before the learned Family Court, Panipat, in the pending proceedings through his attorney. Needless to say, the appellant is at liberty to challenge the decree whereby divorce has been granted by the State of Connecticut Superior Court on 23.08.2022, in accordance with law, if so advised.”