Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3433
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
Pramod Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. - 3896 of 2009
Decided On : 21-05-2015
For the Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav
For the Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Shiv Babu Dubey
The impugned order of issuing process for realization of the maintenance amount is routine and interlocutory, and therefore not maintainable for revision.
Headnote:
maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court dismissed the revisionist's plea to stay the execution proceeding of the maintenance order, stating that the impugned order of issuing process for realization of the maintenance amount is routine and interlocutory, and therefore not maintainable for revision.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the revisionist's plea to stay the execution proceeding of the maintenance order passed on the application of his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original order of maintenance exists in an effective way and has become final, and therefore, the revision cannot be allowed only for staying the execution proceeding of the maintenance order.
Issues: The issue was whether the revisionist's plea to stay the execution proceeding of the maintenance order was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order of issuing process for realization of the maintenance amount is routine and interlocutory, and therefore not maintainable for revision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, stating that the impugned order of issuing process for realization of the maintenance amount is routine and interlocutory, and therefore not maintainable for revision.
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist requested for passing over of the case so that he may enquire whether revisionist is alive or not. This ground is not satisfactory for adjourning the case and passing over it, because we have to go through the merit of the impugned order and nothing else.
3. In the present case, order of maintenance against revisionist was passed on application of his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said order was neither quashed nor stayed till filing of the revision. Since original order of maintenance exists in effective way, therefore, such revision cannot be allowed only for staying the execution proceeding of the order of maintenance that has become final. After finality of the order of maintenance, the impugned order of issuing process for realization of its amount is a routine and interlocutory order ,which suffers from no error. Apparently, it is interlocutory order, against which, revision is not maintainable. Therefore, revision is dismissed.
…………….
