CMA(MD)/373/2026 of A.Manikandan Vs C.Shanmuga Priya on 14 October 2026

J U D G M E N T

The husband before the Family Court, Thanjavur, comeup with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the injunction order granted by the Family Court, Thanjavur, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.119 of 2024, where the wife filed that application for interim injunction restraining the husband to disturb the wife in her working place as well as residence.

2. Though the said interim injunction was allowed, the husband comeup with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under order XLIII Rule 1 r/w section 104 of C.P.C.

3. The impugned order was passed by the Family Court, Thanjavur. The Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with the jurisdiction of Family Court. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (herein after referred as 'Act 1984') to give such jurisdiction. However, the wife filed an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules

1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. Generally, the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Family Court proceedings, wherein as per the Act 1984, the jurisdiction and procedure prescribed under the said Act shall be applicable to proceedings before the Family Court.

4. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C deals with temporary injunction. To invoke Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., there must be a suit with regard to property in dispute as per Clause (a) to (c) of Rule 1 C.P.C. Here, the case before the Family Court is nullity of marriage under section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to “Act 1955”). The wife challenges the marriage as nullity under section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 1955, holding that the marriage is voidable, where the filing of interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C is not permissible. However, the party may file an appropriate petition seeking directions or an injunction before the Family Court, invoking the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

5. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) section 7 of the Act 1984, says "a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them” can be maintainable before the Family Court. But, there is no such suit with regard to the property in between the spouses. Only the main case is with regard to the nullity of marriage on the ground of voidable marriage.

6. As per section 19 of the Act 1984, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order of the Family Court to the High Court on both facts and law. Here, interim injunction petition though allowed, it is interlocutory order in certain aspects. It is also settled law that the interim injunction granted in the civil Court proceedings determines certain rights of the parties, thereby, it is an intermediate order. The Civil Court possesses the power to pass such an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would lie before the appellate court against such an order under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C.

7. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, deals with the overriding effect of the Act, which is a self-contained enactment with regard to proceedings before the Family Court. Therefore, filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC against an interim injunction granted by the Family Court is not maintainable before the Single Judge of this Court. However, the appellant may work out his remedy before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the manner known to law either under section 19 or any other provision of the Act 1984.

8. The power of appeal is vested with the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court under section 19 of the Act 1984, and, therefore, invoking Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C to challenge the impugned order before the Single Judge of this Court is not maintainable. Section 19 (5) of the Act 1984 generally bars either appeal or revision, except order under section 19 of the Act 1984, thereby approaching the Single Judge of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C by filing the civil miscellaneous appeal is not at all maintainable.

9. On appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C against the interim order passed by the Family Court is generally is not maintainable, independently on section 19 of the Act 1984. In Savitha B.P. v. Sri. Sudhir Jegadeeshan (2015), the Karnataka High Court held that an appeal filed directly under Order XLIII of the CPC against an order of the Family Court rejecting an interim application was not maintainable in view of Section 19 of Act1984.

10. In Yogish Arora v. Gennette Yogish Arora (2018), the Allahabad High Court held that certain interim injunction orders could be appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, where such orders constituted intermediate orders that conclusively determined the rights of the parties concerning a particular issue. Thereby, once the Family court has restrained the husband for disturbing the wife, the husband has to file appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act not an independent appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C is not maintainable before the Single Judge of this Court. It is left open to the appellant to challenge the interim injunction granted by the Family Courts, which is under impugned in the manner known to law, before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court if the law permits.

12. On perusal of the trial court’s order, it is found that the learned trial Judge prepared the order in the vernacular language, dictated directly to the stenotypist, corrected after it was typed, and thereafter pronounced the order. The facts of the petitioner case before the trial Court has been narrated in one sentence with 53 lines with 318 words, without segregation of sentence. The case of the husband before the trial Court has been narrated in 82 lines with 634 words without any breaking the sentence in small parts. These are in single para respectively, without any division of paragraphs.

13. Likewise, the discussion portion of the order, including the reasons and findings thereon, runs into 9½ pages, comprising 169 lines and 1,260 words, with usage of commas. The order have not been drafted in a proper manner, with distinct paragraphs and separate sentences to organise the discussion, analyse the facts evidence adduced in the case, and clearly articulate the reasons and findings. The records reveal that the discussion runs in 9 ½ pages without any division of paragraphs or sentence with 1260 words in a single sentence is not correct so. The trial Judge, being a senior Judge, is expected to know how to prepare the judgment / order and to segregate the factual aspects of the case into separate paragraphs. I hope that the trial Judge will follow how to prepare the judgment even in vernacular judgment, there must be a separate sentence with separate paragraphs to narrate the case facts and also the discussion and answering the consideration.

14. With the above observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the appellant to work out the remedy as per the Act 1984. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 29.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No LS To

1. The Family Court, Thanjavur.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS CMA(MD) No. 373 of 2026 and CMP(MD) No. 3556 of 2026 29.10.2026