Honble GARG, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.5.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur by which the learned Judge, Family Court accepted the application of respondent No.1 for interim maintenance in the proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that petitioner-husband would pay Rs. 400 as interim maintenance allowance to respondent No.1 and Rs. 300/- each to children with effect from 20.7.98 and it was further ordered that this interim order shall remain in force till the final decision of the case.

(2). Aggrieved from the said order dated 26.5.2001, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3). In this revision, petition a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of D.B. Decision of this Court (Minor Anu vs. Smt. Padamja) (1), where this Court after analysing the law on the point in dispute has clearly held that against the interim order of maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., no appeal lies as the interim order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Judge, Family Court is termed as interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984).

(4). Section 19 of the Act, 1984 provides procedure for filing appeal from the judgment and order passed by the Family Court Judges. In clause 4 of Section 19 of the Act, 1984, the High Court may pass on its motion or otherwise call for or examine the record of any proceedings of any family Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or proprietory of the order not being an interlocutory order. Thus, even clause IV of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 says that no appeal or revision lies against the interlocutory order. This Court in the above case has clearly held that the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, therefore, from this point of view also, this revision petition is not maintainable against the interim order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court in another case (Smt. Uma vs. State) (2), has held that the order of interim maintenance is an interlocutory order, therefore, no revision lies.

(5). For the aforesaid reasons, it is finally concluded that the order of maintenance pendente lite passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and thus no appeal or revision lies against that order.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document