Vishal Kochar vs Pulkit Sahni - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 2250

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2250

UMA SHANKER VYAS
Vishal Kochar – Appellant
Versus
Pulkit Sahni – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ashvin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant
Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. These cross criminal revision petitions are filed under Sec. 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Family Court No.2, Jaipur in Case No.1/20, whereby interim maintenance was allowed in pending application u/s.125 Cr.P.C. Petitioners-original applicants Mrs.Pulkit and Baby Mehak-wife and daughter of Vishal have challenged this order for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance, whereas, the other petitioner- original non applicant Vishal has prayed for quashing the impugned order.

2. Before going into merits, issue regarding maintainability of these revision petitions is to be decided.

3. Heard learned counsels for both the parties on the aforesaid point.

4. It was contended that revision petition is maintainable against the impugned order; however, learned counsels fairly admitted that there are judgments of contrary view on this point as well.

5. 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 petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Mukund Murari Mahto VS Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi - Current Civil Cases (2025): This case is positively referenced by another court or decision, as indicated by the phrase "he refers to paragraph Nos.21 to 24 of the said judgment" and its association with taking "the same view" as other courts (including Rajasthan High Court in Vishal). This suggests it has been cited approvingly or followed for the proposition that an order is interlocutory in nature.

Sunil Kumar Sabharwal VS Neelam Sabharwal - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 17: Presents a clear holding that "An order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C." No negative treatment indicators present; appears to state a position consistent with similar cases.

Sumer Chand Alias Sumer Nath VS Sandhuran Rani - 1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 361: Presents a clear holding that "An order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not an interlocutory order and is subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code." No negative treatment indicators present; aligns with the holding in Sunil Kumar Sabharwal VS Neelam Sabharwal - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 17.

Mukund Murari Mahto VS Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi - Current Civil Cases (2025): Treatment is somewhat ambiguous due to fragmented text ("Pulkit Sahni & Ors. reported in 2022 0 Supreme (Raj) 2250 and he refers to... taken the same view... Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vishal"). While it appears positively referenced, the exact context (e.g., whether it's being followed or distinguished) is not fully clear from the provided snippet. Categorized as "referenced_or_followed" based on approving language like "taken the same view," but noted here for incompleteness.