Whether Criminal Revision Petition Maintainable Against Order Granting Interim Maintenance U/s 125 Cr. P.C: Rajasthan HC Examines

In this regard, the court opined that the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, regarding interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order, hence revision petitions being not maintainable, either under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

The court considered the question whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and consequently, whether criminal revision petition is maintainable against that order or not.

Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered,

"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 397/401 Cr.P.C. or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, are accordingly dismissed."

The present cross criminal revision petitions are filed under Sec. 397/401 CrPC, against the order passed by Family Court, whereby interim maintenance was allowed in pending application u/s.125 Cr.P.C. Petitioners-original applicants Mrs.Pulkit and Baby Mehak-wife and daughter of Vishal have challenged this order for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance, whereas, the other petitioner original non applicant Vishal has prayed for quashing the impugned order.

It was opined by the court that Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the power of revision conferred by Section 397(1) Cr.P.C shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Thus it is an undisputed legal position that a revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order at all, added the court.

The court noted 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.

Reliance was placed by the court on the decisions of this court in Anu v Ratanlal (1993), Chhotu Singh v. Basanti Devi and Ors. (2003) and Anshul Kulshreshth v Smt Swarnima ((2019), wherein it was categorically held that the order of interim maintenance passed in pending application under Section 125 of CrPC is an interlocutory order.

The court observed that application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an independent/separate proceeding and order passed under such proceeding decides the rights of parties in their finality. The court noted that after such an order, no proceeding remains pending in the application filed under Section 24. Therefore, based on the above explained criterion, such order is not an interlocutory order but a final order, added the court.

It was further mentioned by the court that Section 19 of the Act of 1955 permits appeal only against final order, and bars any appeal or revision against interlocutory order.

Further, the court opined that the order of interim maintenance under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not terminate the proceedings finally. The court noted that the matter remains sub judice and rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided in finality. Though, the court also noted that in such circumstances, the interim order of maintenance is in the nature of interlocutory order, yet it is appealable as per Section 29 of the Act 2005. Act 2005 and does not deal with the question of maintainability of revision against interlocutory order, hence, it cannot be applied with regard to the orders of interim maintenance passed under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C, added the court.

Additionally, it was also opined by the court that if an order is passed in a pending proceeding or a trial and it does not terminate the proceeding finally and rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided in finality, then that order shall be considered as an interlocutory order.

Adv. Ashvin Garg appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Adv. Ram Chandra Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Vishal Kochar v. Smt. Pulkit Sahni & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 150