Smt. Huma Siddiqui v. Farid Alam), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178718 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18461 of 2024 Applicant :- Farid Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
Legal Reasoning
co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that order of granting interim maintenance cannot be termed as interlocutory order as it categorically decides rights of maintenance and thus, the revision against such order is maintainable. 6. In case of Liaqat Hussain Vs. Jainab Praveen and Another AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2497, a Division Bench of this Court has held that remedy of criminal revision was available against an interim and final order passed under Section - 125 and 128 of Cr.P.C. 7. In case of Manish Aggarwal Vs. Seema Aggarwal and Others 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4816, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has summarized the legal position as under :- "26. We, thus, conclude as under: i. In respect of orders passed under Sections 24 to 27 of the HM Act appeals would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act to the Division Bench of this Court in view of the provisions of sub- section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act, such orders being in the nature of intermediate orders. It must be noted that sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act is applicable only in respect of sub-section (1) and not sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act. ii. No appeal would lie under Section 19 (1) of the said Act qua proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 125 to 128) in view of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act. iii. The remedy of criminal revision would be available qua both the interim and final order under Sections 125 to 128 of the Cr.P.C. under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act. iv. As a measure of abundant caution we clarify that all orders as may be passed by the Family Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the said Act, which have a character of an intermediate order, and are not merely interlocutory orders, would be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act. iv. As a measure of abundant caution we clarify that all orders as may be passed by the Family Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 7 of the said act, which have a character of an intermediate order, and are not merely interlocutory orders, would be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act." 8. In case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Rukhmani Bisen (Misc. Criminal Case No. 60364 of 2022), decided on 07.02.2023, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that order of maintenance affects right of a person drastically and substantially, hence, it cannot be treated as interlocutory order and criminal revision should be preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order passed on the application for interim maintenance by the Family Court. 9. In case of Nitish Kumar vs. Neha Kumari (Cr. MMO No.1083 of 2022), decided on 14.12.2023, Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held has under :- "13. Therefore, it is apparent that the Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when an alternative remedy is available. Since an alternative remedy under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is available; therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not lie before this Court." 10. From the aforesaid case laws, it is apparent that cases of Jitendra Kumar Verma (supra) and Rahul Nagar (supra) relied by learned counsel for the applicant, were taken into consideration in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay (supra) and it was held that order of granting interim maintenance cannot be termed as interlocutory order. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid case of Liaqat Hussain (supra) has also taken a similar view and the same has effect of binding precedent to this Court. Some of other High Courts have also taken the view that order of interim maintenance affects right of a person drastically and substantially, hence, the same cannot be treated as interlocutory order and that in view of provisions of Section -19(4) of the Family Courts Act, a revision is maintainable against order of interim maintenance granted by the Family Court. 11. Thus, it is apparent that applicant has specific remedy of filing of revision against the impugned order in terms of provisions of Section - 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. As the specific remedy of revision has been provided under Special Act, thus it will override the general provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In view of aforesaid, it is held that order of grant of interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order and thus, the instant application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 13. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not maintainable. Order Date :- 14.11.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
No.1, Meerut in Case No. 943 of 2018 (Smt. Huma Siddiqui vs. Farid Alam), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2/wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3/minor daughter. 3. Regarding maintainability of the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that vide impugned order interim maintenance has been granted and that order is interlocutory in nature and thus, the application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. In this connection, learned counsel has referred case of Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2020:AHC-LKO:6221, decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.06.2020, wherein it has been observed that order of interim maintenance is a interlocutory order. Similarly, in case of Rahul Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:148160, the aforesaid case of Jitendra Kumar Verma (supra) was relied and it was held that revision against order of interim maintenance would not be maintainable. It was further submitted that in case of Ashu Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023:AHC:165660, the challenge was made to the final order under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. and thus, the said case is not applicable to the instant matter. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. It would be pertinent to mention that in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:2129445, after considering the law laid down in case of Rahul Nagar (supra) and Jitendra Kumar Verma (supra), the