Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(6 of 13) [CRLR-462/2021]

12. The order of interim maintenance under the provisions of Act 2005 does not terminate the proceedings finally. The matter remains sub judice and rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided in finality. Though, 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. In the case of Amir Khan vs State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), it was held that such interim order is appealable under Section 29 of the Act of 2005, and a criminal revision petition is maintainable against the final order of appellate Court. This judgment stands on different set of laws i.e., 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.

18. Similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anu vs Ratan Lal Sharma, reported in 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 (10 of 13) [CRLR-462/2021] authoritative judgment of the Apex Court of the Country in Savitri v. Govind Singh: 1986 D.M.C.

"13. There are differing views of different High Courts, Punjab & Haryana High Court are of view that interim maintenance order is not an interlocutory order, whereas Calcutta @ Madhya Pradesh High Court are of the view that interim maintenance order is an interlocutory order but this court is bound by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court "Chhotu Singh vs Smt. Basanti & Ors."

(Supra) & Minor Anu vs Ratan Lla Sharma"

(Supra), wherein grant of interim maintenance is held to be an interlocutory order.

14. Since the interim maintenance order continues till the final decision of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the decision of an interim application does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties, it cannot be considered to be a final order as to give rights to the parties to move a revision petition.