The Karnataka High Court held that a revision petition challenging an order granting interim maintenance is not maintainable as such orders are interlocutory under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
The revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:13415 RPFC No. 48 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 48 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KUM. DHANYA V.R., D/O VEENA K.S., AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R/A NO.12, 'A' 2ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, KENGERI, BENGALURU VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BENGALURU-560 056, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.VEENA K.S.
…RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FILED AGAINST THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE DATED 03.01.2024. IN CRL. MISC. NO.72/2020 MAY NOT BE MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT.
NC: 2024:KHC:13415 RPFC No. 48 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2/2020 in C.Misc.No.72/2020 whereby the Court below had directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife as interim maintenance from the date of application till the disposal of the case, the husband is before this Court. When the Revision Petition is filed the office has taken objections on the maintainability in view of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act.
and submits that this is an intermediary order but not an interlocutory order which culminates in closure of the intermediate proceedings. The closure happens on account of the rights and liabilities of the parties being determined
1 Crl.Pet.No.5944/2023
in the said proceedings. Therefore, it is an intermediate order. According to him, the dispute with regard to interim maintenance an order is passed and it is an intermediary order and the RPFC is maintainable.
"19. Appeal.—[(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.]"
I.A.No.2 is filed seeking interim maintenance. The Court below had passed an order that respondent/wife is entitled for the maintenance as an interim measure till the disposal of the main application filed under Section 125 of
NC: 2024:KHC:13415 RPFC No. 48 of 2024
CrPC. At any stretch of imagination, the order passed by
the Court below is not an intermediary order but an interlocutory order and the revision petition is not maintainable.
permitted to file a writ petition with a liberty to file an appropriate petition.
withdrawn' with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available.
The Registry shall return the certified copies to the petitioner.
Sd/Judge
BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition is maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against an interlocutory order granting interim maintenance.
Whether an order directing interim maintenance till disposal of the main application counts as an intermediary order or an interlocutory order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay P.S. vs. Abhisek M.Distinguished¶21
Crl.Pet.No.5944/2023 dated 28.07.2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. RAVIKUMAR
SMT.VEENA K.S.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
