Rajasthan High Court
Ramkrishan @ Kishanlal Ramkishan ... vs Smt. Kamla Devi Wife Of Ramkrishan ... on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 640/2021
Ramkrishan @ Kishanlal Ramkishan Son Of G.L.
Choudhary, Aged About 57 Years, R/o At Present
Working At Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur (Raj.) At
Present R/o Village Kouthun, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur And Block-D, House No. 167, Siddharth Nagar,
Near North West Railway Head Office, Jagatpura
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kamla Devi Wife Of Ramkrishan @ Kishanlal
Ramkishan D/o Shri Laduram, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o House No. 334, Gordhan Nagar, Toll Tax, Tonk
Road, Jaipur Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Meena, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Naraniya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
11/07/2022
This revision petition is preferred against the
order dated 30.03.2021 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, No.2, Jaipur, whereby application for
interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
allowed.
Learned counsel for respondent-complainant
raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability
of the revision petition. In support of his submission,
(2 of 4) [CRLR-640/2021]
he placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case
of Vishal Kochar Vs. Smt. Pulkit Sahni (Smt.) & Anr.,
reported in 2022 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 923.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the issue regarding maintainability of
the revision petition is concerned, this court has
already decided the controversy in the case of Vishal
Kochar VS. Smt. Pulkit Sahni (Smt.) & Anr.,
reported in 2022 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 923, and held
as under:
21. In the light of above mentioned
legal prepositions regarding law of
precedents and their binding force,
judgments of other High Court/s
have only persuasive force and not
binding force. This Court is bound by
the decision of the Division Bench of
this court in Anu vs Ratanlal,
reported in RLR 1993(1) 125 and
judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Chhotu Singh vs Basanti
Devi and Others, reported in RLW
2003(1)114 and Anshul Kulshreshth
vs Smt Swarnima, reported in RLW
2019(1)610, wherein it was
categorically held that the order of
interim maintenance passed in
pending application under Section
125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order.
(3 of 4) [CRLR-640/2021]
22. It is also pertinent to mention
here that Section 19 (1) & (4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 provides
that no appeal or revision shall lie
against any interlocutory order
passed by Family Court. The
impugned order dated 27.01.2021 is
passed by the Family Court No.2,
Jaipur empowered under the Family
Courts Act, 1984, therefore such
revision petitions are not
maintainable in the light of these
provisions also.
23. An order of interim maintenance
passed under Sec. 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.
24. As per above discussion and
settled legal position, this Court
arrives at the conclusion that the
impugned order dated 27.01.2021,
regarding interim maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., is an
interlocutory order, hence both the
revision petitions being not
maintainable, either under Section
(4 of 4) [CRLR-640/2021]
397/401 Cr.P.C. or under Section 19
of the Family Courts Act, are
accordingly dismissed.
Since the issue aforesaid has already been
decided by this Court in the case of Vishal Kochar Vs.
Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Anr. (Supra), this revision petition
stands dismissed.
Consequently, upon dismissal of the revision
petition, the stay application along with other pending
application(s) also stands dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
DANISH USMANI /65
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
