Muhammed Rassal vs Aaina Marliya
2023 Latest Caselaw 40 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 40 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2023

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Rassal vs Aaina Marliya on 6 January, 2023

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
                       RPFC NO.5 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MP NO.510/2021 IN MP
            123/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            MUHAMMED RASSAL, AGED 28 YEARS,
            S/O.NOUSHAD, MOLLAH HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
            KANDANTHARA KARA, PERUMBAVOOR., PIN - 683542.

            BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH M.UMMER

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       AAINA MARLIYA, AGED 3 ½ YEARS (MINOR),
            D/O.MUHAMMED RASSAL, MOLLAH HOUSE,
            VENGOLA VILLAGE, KANNANTHARA KARA,
            REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
            NISSA MUTHU, AGED 24 YEARS,
            W/O.MUHAMMED RASSAL, THOOKAYIL HOUSE,
            MARAMBILLY VILLAGE, MUDICKAL P.O, PIN - 683547.

    2       NISSA MUTHU, AGED 24 YEARS,
            W/O.MUHAMMED RASSAL, THOOKAYIL HOUSE,
            MARAMBILLY VILLAGE, MUDICKAL P.O., PIN - 683547.


        THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   06.01.2023,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC No.5 of 2023
                                 2



                         O R D E R

Dated, this the 06th January, 2023

In this revision petition filed under

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984,

the revision petitioner, who is the respondent

in M.P.No.510/2021 in M.P.No.123/2021 (in fact

M.C.No.123/2021) on the files of the Family

Court, Muvattupuzha, impugns order in the above

M.C. dated 03.11.2022, where the Family Court

granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/-

each to the respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. Whether an interim or interlocutory

order passed in a criminal proceedings is

revisable under Section 397, 399 and 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure?

3. Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,

1984, reads as follows:

[(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 RPFC No.5 of 2023

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.]

4. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as

'Cr.P.C.', for short) deals with revisional

powers of this Court in so far as an order

passed by the Family Court is concerned. Since

the Family Courts Act does not exclude the

provisions of Cr.P.C. though as per Section 20

of the Family Courts Act, an overriding effect

to provision of the Family Courts Act is

safeguarded. Section 20 provides that the

provisions of this Act shall have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law for the time being

in force or in any instrument having effect by

virtue of any law other than this Act. If so, RPFC No.5 of 2023

the power of revision could be exercised by

resorting to Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

5. Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. provides as

under:

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

6. In the decision reported in V.C.Shukla

v. State through C.B.I. [AIR 1980 SC 962], the

constitutional bench of the Apex Court after

referring the other decisions including the

decision reported in Madhu Limaye v. State of

Maharashtra [AIR 1978 SC 47](three bench),

considered the orders, which are revisable by

invoking power under Section 397 read with

Section 399 and 401 of Cr.P.C. and held by

majority view as under:

The word 'interlocutory order' used in S.397(2) of the Code relates to various stages of the trial, namely, appeal, inquiry, trial or any other proceeding. The RPFC No.5 of 2023

object seems to be to cut down the delays in stages through which a criminal case passes before it culminates in an acquittal, discharge or conviction. Having regard to the very large ambit and range of the Code, the expression 'interlocutory order' would have to be given a broad meaning so as to achieve the object of the Act without disturbing or interfering with the fairness of the trial. The term 'interlocutory order' used in the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be given a very liberal construction in favour of the accused in order to ensure complete fairness of the trial because the bar contained in S.397(3) of the Code would apply to a variety of cases coming up before the courts not only being offences under the Penal Code but under numerous Acts. The revisional power of the High Court or the Sessions Judge could be attracted if the order was not purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final. The same, however, could not be said of the Special Courts Act which was meant to cover only specified number of crimes and criminals and the objective attained was quickest despatch and speediest disposal.

[AIR 1977 SC 2185; AIR 1978 SC 47; AIR 1949 FC 1; AIR 1977 SC 1489; AIR 1977 SC 403 and AIR 1972 SC 545, Expld.]

7. Here, an interim order is under RPFC No.5 of 2023

challenge. Therefore, revision will not lie,

against the said order. Therefore, this

revision petition is dismissed, with liberty to

petitioner to initiate proper proceedings, as

provided under law.

Registry is directed not to number revision

petitions of this nature.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

ww RPFC No.5 of 2023