Applicant challenged a Family Court interim maintenance order via Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held an interim maintenance order is not interlocutory; a revision lies under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, overriding the CrPC, and dismissed the application as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74777
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 739 of 2025
Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
maintainable. Referring to the case of Mohd. Shaqeel Vs. Smt. Ranno & 2 Others , passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.01.2020 in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2020, it was submitted that this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of maintenance is maintainable.
"26. We, thus, conclude as under:
i. In respect of orders passed under Sections 24 to 27 of the HM Act appeals would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act to the Division Bench of this Court in view of the provisions of sub- section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act, such orders being in the nature of intermediate orders. It must be noted that sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act is applicable only in respect of sub-section (1) and not sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.
ii. No appeal would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act qua proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 125 to 128) in view of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act.
iii. The remedy of criminal revision would be available qua both the interim and final order under Sections 125 to 128 of the Cr.P.C. under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act. iv. As a measure of abundant caution we clarify that all orders as may be passed by the Family Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the said Act, which have a character of an intermediate order, and are not merely interlocutory orders, would be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act.
iv. As a measure of abundant caution we clarify that all orders as may be passed by the Family Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the said act, which have a character of an intermediate order, and are not merely interlocutory orders, would be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act."
"13. Therefore, it is apparent that the Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when an alternative remedy is available. Since an alternative remedy under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is available; therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not lie before this Court."
against order of interim maintenance granted by the Family Court. In view of aforesaid case laws, particularly, considering the case of Liaqat Hussain (supra), the law laid down in case of Mohd. Shaqeel (supra) cannot be acted upon.
Order Date :- 8.5.2025 S Rawat
Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against a Family Court order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Shaqeel Vs. Smt. Ranno & 2 OthersDoubted¶10
Mohd. Shaqeel Vs. Smt. Ranno & 2 Others, Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2020
Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherRelied on¶6
Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445
Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶6
Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2020:AHC-LKO:6221
Rahul Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶6
Rahul Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:148160
Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and AnotherRelied on¶10
Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497
Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and OthersRelied on¶7
Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Rukhmani BisenReferred¶8
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Rukhmani Bisen (Misc. Criminal Case No. 60364 of 2022)
Nitish Kumar vs. Neha KumariRelied on¶9
Nitish Kumar vs. Neha Kumari (Cr. MMO No.1083 of 2022)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Piyush Kumar
State Of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Opposite Party No. 3
Opposite Party No. 4
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
