LI Network
Published on: December 31, 2023 at 15:25 IST
The Delhi High Court emphasized that the characterization of an order as “interlocutory or intermediate” doesn’t solely decide its challengeability, rather it’s contingent on its nature.
This ruling came in a case where a father sought to prevent his wife from taking their children out of the jurisdiction without court permission.
The Court clarified this stance while dealing with a petition to overturn the Family Court’s order regarding children’s guardianship and their removal from Delhi’s jurisdiction. It stressed that the category of ‘interlocutory orders’ might possess attributes akin to finality and impact vital rights, warranting appeal, even if they’re labeled as interlocutory.
Represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, the petitioner father filed a Guardianship Petition seeking sole guardianship and permanent custody of his children. However, the Family Court’s order restricted the issuance of any transfer documents by the children’s school. The father contested this order, alleging an imminent risk of their removal from Delhi.
The High Court emphasized that an order’s nature determines its challengeability. While orders impacting substantive rights are appealable, those merely procedural may fall under the ambit of writ jurisdiction.
In this case, the Court found the order in question didn’t decisively impact substantive rights, making it challengeable under Article 227, not Section 19 of the Act.
Moreover, the Court noted the absence of substantive reasons for the father’s apprehensions and allowed the respondent to travel with the children, subject to filing an affidavit.