APHC010053142019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 198/2019 Between: V.Tanuja Rani ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NALLANAGULA LALITHA SREE 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Dr MAJJI SURI BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking to challenge the Common Order, dated 05.11.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.352 of 2014, F.C.O.P.No.(GWOP) No.81 of 2017 and F.C.O.P.(M.C.) No.135 of 2015 on 2 the file of XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada. 2. No representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada passed the common order on 05.11.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.352 of 2014, F.C.O.P.No.(GWOP) No.81 of 2017 and F.C.O.P.(M.C.) No.135 of 2015 and operative portion of the said common order reads as under: “50. In the result, FCOP 352/2014 is allowed by dissolving the marriage dated 2-9-2010 between the petitioner and respondent by passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty U/s.13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act. FCOP (GWOP) 81/2017 is partly allowed by granting visitation rights to the petitioner to visit the minor child once in a month i.e., on every fourth Sunday subject to payment of maintenance to the minor child awarded in FCOP (M.C.) 135/2015. FCOP (M.C.) 135/2015 is partly allowed by directing the petitioner (respondent in FCOP (M.C.) 135/2015) to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner in FCOP (M.C.) 135/2015 from the date of application. The rest of the relief in FCOP (M.C.) 135/2015 and FCOP 81/2017 is dismissed. In the circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs. 3 4. Sri Dr.Majji Suri Babu, the learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 and 3 brought to the notice of this Court the provision under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’), which reads as under: “19 (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. 5. From a fair reading of Section 19(1) of ‘the Act’, it is clear that against the final order passed by the Family Court, an appeal would only lie. However, the petitioner has filed the revision case. Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of ‘the Act’ mandates that an appeal preferred under sub-section (1) of Section 19 shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges from the High Court. The impugned order is not an interlocutory or intermediate order and it is a final order. If it is an intermediate order, the petitioner is liberty to file a revision before this Court. If it is an interlocutory order, no revision lies as contemplated sub-section (2) of Section 397 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The revision is not maintainable in view of the embargo in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of ‘the Act’. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before the appropriate Court. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Judgment. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.11.2025 S D P 5 143 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.198 of 2019 Date:25.11.2025 S D P