Anuj @ Alex vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1216 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1331/2022

Anuj @ Alex S/o C.p. Sakko, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 206, U.i.t. Colony, Pratapnagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Anju Bharghav W/o Anuj @ Alex, Aged About 45 Years, D/o Naresh Chandra Bharghav, B/c Brahmin, R/o E-D-55, Bapparawal Nagar, Sector Number - 06, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP Mr. Bhakti Singh for Mr. Sushil Solanki

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

02/02/2023

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under

Section 397/401 of the CrPC for quashing the order dated

12.10.2022 passed by learned Family Court No. 2, Udaipur in Case

No. 273/2022 titled as "Smt Anju v. [email protected] Alex", whereby the

learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125

CrPC filed by the respondent No. 2 herein and directed the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 20,000/- per month as interim

maintenance to the respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the

application for interim maintenance i.e. from 23.12.2021.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised a

preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present

revision petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

(2 of 5) [CRLR-1331/2022]

respondent that an order granting interim maintenance under

Section 125, CrPC is an interlocutory order and therefore, is not

revisable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present revision

petition being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed. In

support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision

of this Court delivered in the case of Ramkishan @ Kishanlal v.

Smt. Kamla Devi (SB Crl. Revision Petition No. 640/2021),

decided on 11.07.2022.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the present revision petition is maintainable and an order granting

interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not an

interlocutory order and the present revision petition is worth

consideration on its merits. In support of his contention, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court

delivered in the case of Jeetram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

and Anr. (SB Crl. Misc. (Petition) No. 7411/2018) decided on

27.11.2018 and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court

delivered in the case of Sunil Kumar Sabharwal v. Neelam

Sabharwal and Anr. (1991 CriLJ 2056).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid

point and perused the judgments. On a perusal of the judgments,

it is amply clear that the judgments have contrary findings.

As regards the issue of maintainability of the revision petition

against an order granting interim maintenance, it has already

been settled by this Court in the case of Vishal Kochar v. Pulkit

Sahni and Ors. (MANU/RH/0899/2022) in para 18, 22, 23

and 24, which for the ready reference are reproduced as under:

(3 of 5) [CRLR-1331/2022]

"18. Similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anu vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, reported in MANU/RH/0160/1993 : RLR 1993 (1) 125, wherein, it was held that an Interim maintenance Order passed in pending proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order. In para No. 11 of the said judgment following observations were made:-

"An interim order of maintenance allowance in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is interim in nature, By such interim order rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided at all. Object of such relief is to grant maintenance to the wife, children or parents, who are unable to maintain themselves and are dependent on the husband, father and son/ daughter as the case may be. Their primary object is to prevent starvation and vagrancy. It is a measure of social justice and to compel a man to perform his moral and legal obligation, he owes to society in respect of his wife, and minor children so that they are not left beggared and destitute on the scrap heap of the society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy and immorality and crime for their subsistence. Minor children are to be taken care of by the father. It is the moral and legal duty of a father to provide sufficient maintenance for his minor children so that they may have proper meals, clothing, and schooling. Therefore, an interim order of allowances for their maintenance is necessary and now it is permissible after the authoritative judgment of the Apex Court of the Country in Savitri v. Govind Singh:

MANU/SC/0104/1985 : 1986 D.M.C. 1. We are of the firm view that any order granting interim maintenance allowance is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Act. The phraseology used in Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act unmistakably provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order which is an interlocutory order.

(4 of 5) [CRLR-1331/2022]

The provisions of appeal under Section 19 of the Act are stringent by incorporating non obstante clauses therein. Even a revision against an interlocutory order is barred under Subsection (4) of Section 19 of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom thought-fully enacted Section 19 with a view to dispose of matrimonial cases as expeditiously as possible. Clear and unambiguous language of Section 19(1) admits no other interpretation. Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for minor children, when faced with this situation, has to concede fairly and rightly so, that the appeals are not maintainable against the impugned order granting interim maintenance allowance. Mr. Ratan Lal Sharma also could not bring any decision to our notice taking a contrary view. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that all the present appeals are not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act as they are directed against an interlocutory order.

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

(5 of 5) [CRLR-1331/2022]

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

The issue of difference of opinion due to contrary findings of

High Courts on the same issue was also addressed in the

judgment of Vishal Kochar (supra). Para 21 of the judgment is

reproduced 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 MANU/RH/0588/2002 : RLW 2003(1)114 and Anshul Kulshreshth vs. Smt. Swarnima, reported in MANU/RH/1183/2018 : 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. "

Therefore, in light of judgment passed by this Court in the case of

Vishal Kochar (Supra), the present revision petition is not

maintainable.

In view of the above, the present revision petition stands

dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of

accordingly.

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing

of the case.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 123-nidhi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)