IA No. 01/2025 in Mat. App. No.96/2025 (Filing No.)

Ms. Yangchen Donkar Bhutia vs. Mr. Sonam Pintso Bhutia

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IA NO. 01/2025

IN

MAT. APP. NO. 96/2025 (Filing No .)

Ms. Yangchen Donkar Bhutia,

Wife of Sonam Pintso Bhutia,

Resident of below Sonam Hotel, Lal Market,

P.O. and P.S. Gangtok, Sikkim.

Presently residing at Rongyek, Bhusuk Road,

Near Panchayat House, Gangtok,

Sikkim. Applicant/Appellant

Versus

Mr. Sonam Pintso Bhutia,

Son of Late Lhakpa Thenup Bhutia,

Resident of below Sonam Hotel, Lal Market,

P.O. and P.S. Gangtok, Sikkim.

Pin Code – 737101 Respondents

For Applicant/Appellant : Mr. Pramit Chhetri, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Zola Megi, Advocate.

Date: 23/09/2025

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

…

J U D G E M E N T: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for

the purpose of seeking condonation of delay for filing of an appeal under

section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The judgment and order of

the learned Family Court was passed in respect of Family Court (Crl.) Case

No.36 of 2024, in an application under section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

IA No. 01/2025 in Mat. App. No.96/2025 (Filing No.)

Ms. Yangchen Donkar Bhutia vs. Mr. Sonam Pintso Bhutia

Page 2 of 3

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (Mrs. Yangchen Donkar Bhutia vs. Mr. Sonam

Pintso Bhutia), on 05

th

March, 2025. The period of delay in filing of the

present appeal, as stated in the instant application, is 135 (one hundred

and thirty five) days.

2. The question that was posed by this Court is whether the period of

135 (one hundred and thirty five) days can be condoned by this Court

under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while taking into account the

fact that this matter is in respect of an order passed by the Family Court,

exercising its powers under section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 {which corresponds to section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (falling under Chapter IX) being the old law}.

3. For the purpose of this matter, we need to consider and read section

19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, carefully:-

“19. Appeal.— ………………………………

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the

Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under

Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal

pending before a High Court or any order passed under

Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the

commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. ”

4. A plain reading of the above provision of law clearly reveals that in

the facts of the instant case, there is no scope for any appeal from an order

passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (which dealt with maintenance under section 125 of the

old law) and which is now squarely covered under section 144, falling under

Chapter X of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Since there is no scope for maintaining any appeal against an order

passed by the Family Court under section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, there is no question of this Court exercising its

discretion to condone the delay in preferring an appeal from an order

therefrom.

IA No. 01/2025 in Mat. App. No.96/2025 (Filing No.)

Ms. Yangchen Donkar Bhutia vs. Mr. Sonam Pintso Bhutia

Page 3 of 3

6. The application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly

dismissed.

(Meenakshi Madan Rai) (Biswanath Somadder)

Judge Chief Justice

jk/ds