An order of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is an intermediate order and thus revisable under Section 397(1); it was affirmed by the Court as not suffering from illegality.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Interim maintenance - An order granting interim maintenance is considered an intermediate order and revisable under Section 397(1) - The Court held that the order does not suffer from illegality or material irregularity and affirmed it. (Paras 25, 27)

(B) Maintenance - Criteria - The amount of Rs. 10,000/- was considered reasonable based on the parties' status and present market prices. (Paras 24)

Facts of the case:
The parties were married in 2007. The opposite party sought maintenance alleging cruelty and abandonment, requesting Rs. 30,000/- monthly while the petitioner claimed no income. A Family Court granted Rs. 10,000/- ad interim maintenance. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The revision challenging the order of interim maintenance was found maintainable and the earlier ad interim order was affirmed. (Para 27)

Issues: The Court examined the maintainability of a revision against the order of ad interim maintenance. (Paras 4, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that an order for interim maintenance based on prima facie evidence is revisable; furthermore, the order was determined not to be illegal or materially irregular. (Paras 25, 27)

Result: Revision dismissed.

Table of Content
1. maintenance application details and petitioner’s background. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding maintainability of revision against interim maintenance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 21)
3. court’s observations on classifications of maintenance orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24)
4. interim maintenance orders are revisable under section 397. (Para 25)
5. affirmation of interim maintenance order; revision dismissed. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. The petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party. Their marriage was solemnized on 8^th of May, 2007. In the month of January, 2023, the Opposite Party filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for maintenance allowance, alleging, inter alia, that after solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner, it was consummated and in the wedlock, she gave birth to a male child, who is aged about 16 years. The petitioner deals with a catering business and earns Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs per year. It is also alleged that the petitioner is addicted to liquor and in the influence of intoxication, he used to treat the Opposite Party with cruelty. On 10^th of December, 2023, he drove her away from her matrimonial home, when she demanded some money to buy medicine. Again, she stated that she has been residing with her parent since 10^th of December, 2018. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has no source of income. Therefore, she demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance per month and Rs. 15,000/- as interim maintenance till the disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. By an order, dated 23^rd of August, 2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur passed an order of ad interim maintenance to be paid by the petitioner in favour of the Opposite Party at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month within 10^th day of each succeeding month till the final disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision.

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Opposite Party, at the outset, submits that Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against an order of ad interim maintenance.

5. In support of his contention, he refers to an unreported decision of this Court of a learned Single Judge, passed in Criminal Revision No. 623 of 2011 on 29^th of November, 2013.

6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party also refers to an unreported decision in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22165 of 2016, decided on 16^th of September, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, holding as hereunder: -

“In view of the discussions made above, we are of the view that the only remedy, available to the petitioner, is to make an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court, if he is so aggrieved by the order of the interim maintenance, dated 10^th of February, 2016, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger.”

7. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order of interim maintenance is not maintainable before the High Court.

8. In view of the above question regarding maintainability, raised before this Court, it is necessary to examine the above-mentioned unreported decisions in the light of the subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to come to a finding as to whether the law that no revision is maintainable against an order of ad interim maintenance is still hold good in view of the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 623 of 2011 (supra).

9. Second and third proviso of Section 125 was inserted by Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24^th September, 2001. The relevant portion runs thus: -

“Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maint