BIKRAM CHETRI v. POONAM CHETRI

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI, MR. R BHAGAWATI,S. K. GUPTA,MR. P SARMA,MR T C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : J KOTOKY, MS. M PATHAK,MRS R KAKATI ,MR. A CHETIA,MR A TEWARI Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

20.05.2025 Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Pathak, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This application has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the propriety of the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in F.C.(Crl.) Case No.115/2022.

3. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from her husband/the present petitioner. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court granted an interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month to be paid by the respondent/petitioner (husband) to his wife i.e. the present respondent.

4. Ms. Pathak has referred to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and submitted that under sub-section (4) of the said Act, a revision petition does not lie in the instant case. According to the learned counsel, the order directing the present petitioner to pay interim maintenance, is an interlocutory order. In support of her case, Ms. Pathak has relied upon the judgment of a Supreme Court that was delivered in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory Page No.# 3/4 order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind—an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue. 22. The view expressed in Amar Nath [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585] and Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] was followed in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat [K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 200] wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K. Patel case [K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 200] , SCC p. 201, para 11) “11. … It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585] , Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] , V.C. Shukla v. State [V.C. Shukla v. State, 1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695] and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam [Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393] ). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.” (emphasis supplied)”

5. Ms. Pathak also relied upon Modhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, in order to explain what amounts to an interlocutory order.

6. Mr. Bhati, on the other hand, also relied upon the aforesaid judgments and discussed about different observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts in those judgments. Page No.# 4/4

7. Thus, the main point for determination is this revision petition is whether or not the order granting monthly interim maintenance is an interlocutory order.

8. An order granting interim maintenance is subject to final adjudication of the main petition. The interim maintenance was granted during pendency of the entire proceeding. In Girish Kumar Suneja (supra), it has been held that the feasibility test is whether by upholding the objection raised by a party it would result in culmination of the proceeding, if so, any order passed on such objection would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Modhu Limaye, it was laid down that the principle that an intermediate order is one of which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceeding and thereby resulting in a final order. In Modhu Limaye (supra), two examples of intermediate orders were given as an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charge. In Modhu Limaye (supra), it was held that on the face of the record those orders are interlocutory in nature but when an order taking cognizance or summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour.

9. In the case in hand, if the order granting interim maintenance is reversed, then the entire proceeding would come to an end. The proceeding will continue. Therefore, the order granting interim maintenance is an interlocutory order and according to Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, no revision lies against an interlocutory order.

10. For the aforesaid premised reason, the Criminal Revision Petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant