Allahabad High Court
GAURAV ANANDversusCHAHAT ANAND
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is disposed, allowing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad entertained a revision petition filed by Gaurav Anand against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner sought relief from that order, but the respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, citing a Full Bench decision in Kiran Bala Srivastava v. Jai Prakash Srivastava. The court examined the preliminary objection and noted that the alternative remedy was available. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition was therefore disposed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal under the Family Courts Act. Additionally, a separate application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be compelled to comply with the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act when an alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is available.
Legislation cited
- Family Courts Act, 1984 — s. 19
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 24
Subjects
- Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 24
- Family Courts Act
- Section 19
- alternative remedy
- writ petition
- delay condonation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 38 of 2024
Gaurav Anand
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Chahat Anand
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ritesh Singh, Suresh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Syed Wajid Ali
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
1. Cause shown is sufficient.
2. Delay is condoned. Application is allowed.
Order on Petition
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The order impugned has been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Anuj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of
Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the respondent that against the order
impugned, petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984 in view of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this
Court in case of Kiran Bala Srivastava vs. Jai Prakash Srivastava;
MANU/UP/2771/2004 passed in First Appeal No.17 of 2002 decided on 10.9.2004.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to interfere with the
matter.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy, as available to him, under the law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, may be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioner after retaining xerox copy of the same on record.
March 18, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…