IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1266 of 2012

With

Interlocutory Application No. 2052 of 2012

======================================================

Md. Sirajuddin, son of Md. Jammu, resident of Village Rahua Milik, Tola

Benghli, Police Station K.Nagar, District Purnia

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Bibi Janishan @ Bibi Janishan Khatoon, wife of Md. Sirajuddin, resident of

Village Rahua Milik, Tola Benghli, Police Station K.Nagar, District Purnia

.... .... Opposite party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate

For the State of Bihar : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, Addl.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

ORAL ORDER

2 18-12-2012 Cr. Revision No. 1266 of 2012 With I.A.No.2052 of 2012

The present Cr. Revision application is barred by

limitation. As per the Stamp Reporter, limitation expired on

14.6.2011 and after removal of defects, the main criminal revision

application was filed on 29.11.2012. Therefore, there is a delay of

more than sixteen months. However, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.

2052 of 2012, explaining the delay and making a prayer for

condonation of delay, occurred in filing the main criminal revision

application.

By the impugned order dated 16.3.2011 passed in

Case No. M 72 of 2009, by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1266 of 2012 (2) dt.18-12-2012

2 / 4

2

Court, Purnia, prayer made on behalf of the opposite party for

grant of interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125

Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to

pay her interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month

with effect from the date of the order till disposal of the main

maintenance case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that, in fact, while passing the impugned order allowing

the claim of interim maintenance, the learned Family Court,

Purnia, has decided the main issues to be raised on behalf of the

petitioner, which ought to have been decided at the time of final

disposal of the main maintenance case by examining the evidence

of witnesses of the parties. However, he has not pointed out any

other legal infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the

learned Family Court, Purnia, allowing the claim of interim

maintenance made on behalf of the opposite party.

Under the mandate of Section 125 (1) proviso (2)

Cr.P.C. the claim for interim maintenance is required to be

decided for interregnum period. Obviously, the provisions under

Section 125( 1) Cr.P,.C. is beneficial in nature and the Legislature

in its wisdom has provided for grant of interim benefit to the

claimant during the pendency of the main maintenance case.

Further, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed

in aid for disposal of main maintenance case and, therefore, it can

safely be held that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature,

and against such an order, revision application may not be

maintainable. However, without deciding the aforesaid issues, this

Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved

by issuing a direction to the learned Family Court, Purnia, to allow

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1266 of 2012 (2) dt.18-12-2012

3 / 4

3

the petitioner to take all the pleas, available to him in support of

his case resisting the prayer made on behalf of the opposite party

for grant of maintenance. It is ordered accordingly.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues

before the learned Family Court, Purnia, which are available to

him, and shall be permitted to produce his evidence/materials in

support of his case within a reasonable period of time fixed by the

l