Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Akil Ahmad vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 June, 2016
Author: Ramesh Kumar Datta
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Datta, Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22165 of 2016
======================================================
Md. Akil Ahmad
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR
DATTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)
3 23-06-2016The matter was heard by us on 9.5.2016 as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 349 of 2016 and since we were of the view that Miscellaneous Appeal does not lie against an order passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, we expressed our view to that extent, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to convert the said Miscellaneous Appeal into an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and post conversion the matter was taken up on 19.5.2016 by a learned Single Judge as a Cr.Misc.Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and apparently, although not so expressed in the order, he was not satisfied that the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was maintainable and the order was passed that in view of the order dated 9.5.2016, let Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22165 of 2016 (3) dt.23-06-2016 2 the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench under the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. Thereafter the matter has come up before us on the orders of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
At the outset, we directed the petitioner to satisfy us as to how an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was maintainable in view of the specific bar for filing of revision against an interlocutory order contained in Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, considering the fact that the order under challenge has been passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- was directed to be paid, in addition to the earlier amount of Rs.15,000/- which was being paid as per the order dated 25.7.2014 of this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 16224 of 2013 while granting anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if that be so the petitioner would be remediless but seeks a short adjournment to enable him to further examine the matter. It is submitted that the direction to pay a huge amount as maintenance is completely unjustified that too by interim order, specially keeping in view that the other side had been duly taken care of by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22165 of 2016 (3) dt.23-06-2016 3 submitted that the petitioner has been continuously persuing his remedy keeping in view that stringent orders are being passed by the court below, whereas the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that there is some remedy available to the petitioner even against an order of the nature that he has challenged.
No one appears on behalf of the State to assist us. Learned Assistant Counsel to learned Principal Additional Advocate General states that learned Principal Additional Advocate General would be informed so that a suitable counsel for the State may be assigned to assist this Court in the matter considering the legal intricacies involved.
Put up on 28th June, 2016.
It is directed that in the meantime upon the petitioner paying Rs.5,000/- additionally per month, the remaining part of the impugned order dated 10.2.2016 shall remain stayed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
spal/- (Sudhir Singh, J)
U