Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. – This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of order dated 3.12.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Maintenance Case No. 153 of 2014 directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation to his wife (O.P. No. 2) and his children @ Rs. 15,000/- per month since the date of filing of interim petition dated 3.8.2015 and also directed to pay lump sump of Rs. 10,000/- towards filing of maintenance petition and other petitions and attending the court till the date and onward Rs. 1000/- on each date towards litigation cost.

2. O.P. No. 2 filed Maintenance Case No. 153 of 2014 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against petitioner for her maintenance as well as for maintenance of her three children.

3. The petitioner appeared in the aforesaid maintenance case and filed his show cause. However, during pendency of the aforesaid maintenance case, O.P. No. 2 under second proviso of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed a petition for grant of interim maintenance and the expenses of the proceeding of her as well as her minor children. The petitioner contested the aforesaid petition but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, allowed the interim maintenance petition passing interim order dated 3.12.2015, which has been challenged before this Court by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Initially, this petition was listed before learned Single Bench of this Court and learned Single Bench having heard the matter at length vide order dated 21.11.2108, doubted the correctness of the view expressed by Division Bench of this Court in Md. Akil Ahmad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2016(4) PLJR 968 [ : 2017 (1) BLJ 40] and, accordingly, observed that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Md. Akil Ahmad case (supra) needs reconsideration by the Division Bench as no finding was given over applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though impliedly jurisdiction has been derecognised and, directed to place the matter before Division Bench and, accordingly, by order of the Chief Justice, this matter has been placed before us.

5. In Md. Akil Ahmad case (supra), the issue before the Division Bench for determination was the maintainability of application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court under second proviso of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of the proceeding of maintenance under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above stated case, the learned Division Bench of this Court having considered various aspects as well as decisions cited came to conclusion that the only remedy available to challenge the order of interim maintenance passed under second proviso of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to make an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court.

6. The learned Division Bench in Md. Akil Ahmad case (supra), further, held that petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed against the order of interim maintenance passed by Family Court under second proviso of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to assist the Court and, accordingly, this Court appointed Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, advocate as well as Sri Ansul, Advocate, Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, submitted that the view expressed by Hon’ble Division Bench in Md. Akil Ahmad’s case (supra) is not a correct view because, the inherent power vested into the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be limited. He, further, submitted that in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharas