IMPORTANT POINT
Order of maintenance affects right of a person drastically and substantially – It cannot be treated as interlocutory order and criminal revision should be preferred under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against order passed on application for interim maintenance by Family Court.

ORDER

Heard on the question of maintainability.

2. As per objection raised by the Registry, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. should be preferred against the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat in MJCR No. 171/2022 (Smt. Rukhmani Bisen Vs. Rajendra Kumar) whereby learned family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. from 12.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is an interim order, so criminal revision should not lie against the impugned order and he placed reliance on an order of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 462/2021 (Vishal Kochar Vs. Smt. Pulkit Sahni) dated 22.04.2022.

4. Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that the power of revision conferred by sub–section (1) of Section 397 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 undisputed legal position that a revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order at all.

5. Now question remains for consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order? Consequently, whether criminal revision petition is lie against that order?

6. Term ‘Interlocutory Order’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs State, reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962, has given following observation in para No.23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order:—

“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having to resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. ‘That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in s. 11(1) of the Act.”

7. Further, in the case of Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made following observations with regard to the criterion of interlocutory order:—

“Ordinarily and generally the expression ‘interlocutory order’ has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term ‘final order’. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England at page 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606:—

“....... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required.’

In para 1607 it is said:—

“In general a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed “final”.”

In para 1608 at pages 744 and 745 we find the words:—

“An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed “interlocutory”. An interloc