It may be stated that in case of Smt. Anjana Mukhopadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177978 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20864 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhupram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 01.06.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court, Moradabad, in case No. 896 of 2022, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Mudhapandey, District Moradabad, whereby interim maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
Legal Reasoning
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. Similarly 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 order of granting interim maintenance cannot be termed as interlocutory order. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Liaqat Hussain (supra) has also taken a similar view. It has been held 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, the 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, 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 :- 13.11.2024 Anand
Arguments
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by impugned order dated 01.06.2024 the Family court has granted interim maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2, without considering relevant facts and law. Regarding maintainability of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that as there is abuse of the process of court, thus, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. It was further submitted that opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are not children of applicant and in fact they are children of earlier husband of opposite party no. 2. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order, is not maintainable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It may be stated 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 Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2020:AHC-LKO:6221 and Rahul Nagar Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:148160, the co-