Interim Maintenance Order Interlocutory, No Revision: Raj HC

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

By an order dated 27.01.2021, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur allowed interim maintenance to a wife and the couple's minor daughter in their pending application under Section 125 CrPC (para 1). Both sides challenged it in criminal revision petitions under Sections 397/401 CrPC: the wife and daughter sought a higher amount of interim maintenance, while the husband sought to have the order quashed (para 1). Before going into the merits, the Court decided whether the revisions were maintainable at all (paras 2-3). Counsel contended that they were, but fairly admitted that there were judgments taking the contrary view (para 4).

Court's Findings

Section 397(2) CrPC bars revision against an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding (para 5). Relying on V.C. Shukla and Madhu Limaye, the Court held that an order passed in a pending proceeding that does not finally decide the parties' rights and liabilities is interlocutory (paras 7-9). Amir Khan, where revision lay against an appellate order under the Domestic Violence Act, rested on a different statute and did not decide this question (paras 10-12). Kavita Vyas, holding Family Court orders under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act appealable, was distinguished because such an order finally decides a separate application (paras 13-15). Rulings of the Punjab and Haryana and Uttarakhand High Courts that interim maintenance is not interlocutory have only persuasive force; under the Dawoodi Bohra rule the Court was bound by the Division Bench in Anu v. Ratan Lal Sharma and the coordinate Benches in Chhotu Singh and Anshul Kulshreshth, which treat such orders as interlocutory (paras 16, 18-21). Section 19(1) and (4) of the Family Courts Act also bar appeal and revision against a Family Court's interlocutory orders (para 22).

Legal Principle

An order granting interim maintenance in a pending application under Section 125 CrPC lasts only until the final order and does not finally decide the parties' rights. It is an interlocutory order, so no revision lies against it under Section 397(2) CrPC, nor under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act when a Family Court passes it (paras 22-24).

Precedents Relied Upon

V.C. Shukla v. State AIR 1980 SC 962
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7, 9
An order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order.
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8, 9
'Interlocutory order' is generally understood as the converse of 'final order'; an order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties is interlocutory.
Amir Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2019 (1) WLC (Raj) UC 645
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 12
An interim maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is appealable under Section 29 of that Act and a criminal revision lies against the appellate court's final order; it does not decide whether revision lies against an interlocutory order.

View all precedents (12)

Kavita Vyas v. Deepak Dave 2018 (1) RLW 97
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 13, 14, 15
Larger Bench: an appeal lies under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against a Family Court order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; such an order finally decides a separate application.
Sumerchand v. Sandhuran Rani & Ors. 1987 Cr.L.J. 1396
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16, 21
Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling cited by counsel for the view that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order; other High Courts' rulings have only persuasive force.
Sunil Kumar Sabharwal v. Neelam Sabharwal 1991 Cr.L.J. 2056
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16, 21
Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling cited by counsel for the view that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order; other High Courts' rulings have only persuasive force.
Ashu Dhiman v. Smt. Jyoti Dhiman Cr. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 434/2018, High Court of Uttarakhand, order dated 15.11.2018
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16, 21
Cited by counsel for the view that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order; other High Courts' rulings have only persuasive force.
Paras Devi v. Suresh Chand 2012 (17) RCR (Criminal) 554
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17
A coordinate Bench entertained a revision concerning interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, but the maintainability of the revision was neither challenged nor decided.
Anu v. Ratan Lal Sharma RLR 1993 (1) 125
Followed Discussed at ¶ 18, 21
Division Bench: an order granting interim maintenance in pending proceedings under Section 125 CrPC is an interlocutory order; Section 19 of the Family Courts Act bars appeal and revision against it.
Chhotu Singh v. Basanti Devi & Ors. RLW 2003 (1) 114
Followed Discussed at ¶ 19, 21
An order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 CrPC is an interlocutory order.
Anshul Kulshreshth v. Smt. Swarnima & Anr. RLW 2019 (1) 610
Followed Discussed at ¶ 19, 21
Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC continues only until the final decision and does not decide the parties' rights and liabilities, so a revision petition against it is not maintainable.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 6736
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20, 21
The law laid down by a Bench of larger strength binds any later Bench of lesser or co-equal strength; a Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt its correctness.

Interim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Is Interlocutory, No Criminal Revision Lies: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Statutory Provisions