Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2023CRLR/78/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court held that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such orders under Section 397 or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as not maintainable against the interlocutory order of interim maintenance.

Sunil Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:39682]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 78/2017

¶4

Sunil Kumar Meena son of Late Shri Heera Lal, R/o Prem Kunj, Roopwas Road Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Smt. Manju Devi wife of Shri Sunil Kumar D/o Mahadeva, R/o Near Plot No.170, Scheme No.-5 Mangal Vihar, Alwar Raj.

¶9

Aditi D/o Sunil Kumar, Minor Through Her Mother Herself Smt. Manju Devi Wife of Shri Sunil Kumar D/, R/o Near Plot No.170, Scheme No.-5 Mangal Vihar, Alwar Raj.

¶10

Anjali D/o Sunil Kumar Minor Through Her Mother Herself Smt. Manju Devi Wife of Shri. Sunil Kumar D, R/o Near Plot No.170, Scheme No.-5 Mangal Vihar, Alwar Raj.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola) Advocate

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deshraj Gosingha, Public Prosecutor

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶15

14/12/2023 :

¶16

Instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Alwar, in Criminal Misc. Application No.1671/2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioners & her minor daughters for interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, while awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month each to the nonpetitioner Nos.3 & 4/minor daughters, total Rs.3,000/- per month, from the date of application till its disposal.

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:39682]

[CRLR-78/2017]

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-husband contends that the respondent-wife has already receiving maintenance amount from the Court of A.C.J.M. under the proceedings of Domestic Violence Act and she is having a Government job. Counsel further contends that the learned Family Court had awarded the amount of interim maintenance on higher side from the date of filing of the application for maintenance without assigning any reason, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed & set aside.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the material made available on record.

¶22

The only point arising for our consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order or not?

¶23

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977)4 SCC 551, has held that if an order is passed in a pending proceeding or a trial and it does not terminate the proceeding finally & rights, and liabilities of the parties are not decided in finality, then that order shall be considered as an interlocutory order.

¶24

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishal Kochar Vs. Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Another, reported in 2022 (4) RLW 2784 (Raj.) in Para 19, has held as under :-

¶25

“19. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Chhotu Singh vs Basanti, (RLW 2003(1) 114), and in Anshul Kulshresth Vs. Smt. Swarnima and Another, (RLW 2019 (1) 610) have also considered that an order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order. In the case of Anshul Kulshreshth (supra), which is compatible with the above reasonings, reads as :-

¶26

"13. There are differing views of different High Courts, Punjab & Haryana High Court are of view that interim maintenance order is not an interlocutory order, whereas Calcutta @ Madhya Pradesh High Court are of the view that interim maintenance order is an interlocutory order but this court is bound by the decision of the Rajasthan High

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:39682]

[CRLR-78/2017]

Court "Chhotu Singh vs Smt. Basanti & Ors." (Supra) & Minor Anu vs Ratan Lla Sharma" (Supra), wherein grant of interim maintenance is held to be an interlocutory order.

¶31

14. Since the interim maintenance order continues till the final decision of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the decision of an interim application does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties, it cannot be considered to be a final order as to give rights to the parties to move a revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is not maintainable."

¶32

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anu vs Ratanlal, reported in RLR 1993(1) 125 and the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Vishal Kochar (supra) , Chhotu Singh (supra) and in Anshul Kulshreshth (supra), have categorically held that the order of interim maintenance passed in pending application under Section 125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order.

¶33

It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 19 (1) & (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides that no appeal or revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Family Court. The impugned order dated 30.11.2016 is passed by the Family Court, Alwar, empowered under the Family Court Act, 1984, therefore such revision petition is not maintainable in the light of these provisions also.

¶34

An order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by any Family Court or Magistrate, during the pendency of the proceeding, remains effective up to the final order only and does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in finality.

¶35

In view of the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vishal Kochar (supra), the case-laws cited herein-above and the settled legal position, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Alwar regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, hence, the revision petition deserves to be

(4 of 4)

[CRLR-78/2017]

[2023:RJ-JP:39682]

dismissed being not maintainable, either under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

¶40

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed as

¶41

not maintainable.