Ashutosh Kumar, J.—In the case of marital discord of one Dr. Dilip Kumar @ Dr. Dilip Kumar Sharma @ Dilip Sharma, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Maintenance Case No. 153 of 2014 directed him to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as an ad interim maintenance to his wife/opposite party No. 2 as also his children. There was a further direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum amount towards the cost of expenses and Rs. 1,000/- for each date in the proceeding as the recurring cost of litigation.

2. Dr. Dilip Kumar challenged the aforenoted order passed by the Family Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.).

3. A question of maintainability was raised by opposite party No. 2 on the strength of a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Md. Akil Ahmad vs. The State of Bihar and Another : 2016 (4) PLJR 968 [: 2017 (1) BLJ 40].

4. In the afore-noted judgment, after going through the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short the Act of 1984) and the provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C., the Division Bench had conclusively held that from a conjoint reading of Sections 10 and 20 of the Act of 1984, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked against the order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in as much as the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C. is confined only before the Family Courts under the proceedings of Chapter IX of the Code. It also held that since an order granting interim maintenance is an interlocutory order, therefore no challenge could be made against such an order under Section 19 (4) of the Act of 1984.

5. The Division Bench of this Court therefore concluded that the only remedy available to the aggrieved party against the order of interim maintenance under the second proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be to make an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and no other forum.

6. The learned Single Judge, on finding such opinion of the Division Bench to be in conflict with other judgments of Bench with co-eval strength, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a Division Bench for a reconsideration of the issues involved in Md. Akil Ahmad’s case (supra) .

7. While saying so, the learned Single Judge relied upon Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : 2018 (2) PLJR 329 (SC) [: 2018 (2) BLJ 136 (SC)], wherein it was held as follows:—

“20. It was observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise:

38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Criminal Procedure Code restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.

…………………………………………………

23. We may also refer to the observations of the Constitution Bench in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay and A