Dismissed

Hemant Kumar v. Sundari Devi @ Shanta Devi

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2024CRLR/122/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition filed by a husband challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, the High Court held that such an order is interlocutory and does not decide final rights and liabilities. Citing settled law and the Family Courts Act, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable as the challenged order regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is interlocutory.

Hemant Kumar Vs Sundari Devi @ Shanta Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9014]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 122/2005

¶4

Hemant Kumar son of Shri Jamna Lal, aged 21 years R/o House No.2/108, Housing Board Colony, Saket Nagar, Beawar, District Ajmer. Presently working in Rajasthan State Electricity Vitran Nigam Chawani Road, Ajmerigate IV Class Servant.

¶5

----Petitioner/applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sundari Devi @ Shanta Devi wife of late Shri Jamna Lal, aged about 42 years R/o Plot No.875, Path No.2, Jamna Nagar, Ajmer Road Sodala, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondent/non-applicant

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

¶10

: None present

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶12

21/02/2024 :

¶13

Instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner-husband against the impugned order dt.16.04.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, No.1, Jaipur, in Case No.247/2002, whereby the application filed by respondent-wife for interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was partly allowed while awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of order till its disposal of original application.

¶14

In the present petition, it is pleaded on behalf of petitioner that the learned Family Court had awarded the amount of interim maintenance on higher side from the date of order till disposal of the original application for interim maintenance without assigning any reason, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed & set aside.

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:9014]

[CRLR-122/2005]

Perused the impugned order as well as the material made available on record.

¶19

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?

¶20

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.

¶21

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 :-

¶22

“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 :-

¶23

"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 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.

¶24

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."

¶25

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

[2024:RJ-JP:9014]

[CRLR-122/2005]

(3 of 3)

interim maintenance passed in pending application under Section 125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order.

¶30

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 16.04.2004 is passed by the Family Court, No.1, Jaipur, empowered under the Family Court Act, 1984, therefore such revision petition is not maintainable in the light of these provisions also.

¶31

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.

¶32

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 16.04.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, hence, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable, either under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

¶33

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶34

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶36

ASHOK/

Hemant Kumar v. Sundari Devi @ Shanta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar v. Sundari Devi @ Shanta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Rajawat Proprietor Vs Madan Lal Sharma S/O Shri Ramjilal Sharma

Nikku@Narendra S/O Shri Mukesh Joshi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Yadav S/O Ram Chandra Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Kishan Lal B/C Lodha Vs Laxmi Bai W/O Kanhaiya Lal B/C Lodha

Darbar Singh Son of Gordhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pritosh Manjhi Son of Uttam Manjhi Vs State of Rajasthan