Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[(2) Any Such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any Person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's [ allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:

9. The proviso to sub Section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is a revisional jurisdiction against an order not being an interlocutory order under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) would submit that being an interlocutory order while allowing or rejecting an application for interim maintenance under Proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable and revision does not lie against such an order.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s) would submit that against an order allowing or rejecting the interim maintenance application under Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has posed a question as to whether the criminal misc. application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable?

16. In view of the dictionary meaning of interlocutory order as defined in Halsbury's Law of England, Volume 22 of the third edition at page 742, interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment supra, an order which adjudicates the rights of the parties on rejecting or allowing the interim maintenance application during proceedings cannot be said to be an interlocutory order.

17. In view of the definition of the interlocutory order and the ratio of the judgment supra, this Court is of the view that an order passed under Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. rejecting or allowing an application for maintenance, pending proceedings, is not an interlocutory order which adjudicates the rights of the parties to some extent. The revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable. It has been held that such an order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are inherent in nature and could be exercised where statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Cr.P.C. is not available. Thus, in view of the findings recorded above that revision against such an order is maintainable, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. The core issue framed by this Court to deal with the controversy is answered accordingly. Since the criminal misc. applications filed by the applicant(s) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable, the applicant(s) would be at liberty to avail the remedy of filing revision, if so advised.