Mukhtar Ali vs Judge, Family Court and Another

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—The applicant has invoked the power u/s 482, Cr. P.C. of this'' Court to quash an order dated 28-10-1997 recorded by the Judge of the Family Court at Allahabad in a proceeding in case No. 73 of 1995 u/s 125, Cr. P.C. Through the impugned order the learned Court below had directed payment of interim maintenance by the applicant to Kishwari Begum and two minor girls, viz. Zarina and Rubina. When told that an interim order for maintenance could be challenged in a criminal revision u/s 397, Cr. PC., the learned counsel submitted that the order was an interlocutory order and hence not open to revision. This view, in my opinion, is not correct. A distinction must be made between an interlocutory order and an interim order passed at an interlocutory stage. Section 397, Cr. P.C. bars exercise of power of revision in relation to interlocutory orders passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. This expression ''interlocutory order'' is to be deemed to be an order which does not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. If any order, which substantially affects the right of one of the parties, it must not be deemed to be an interlocutory order. Under this interpretation, order of granting interim maintenance cannot be deemed to be an interlocutory order as it saddles a responsibility on a particular party for paying maintenance arid as such substantially affects his rights.

In my view, the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and as such open to be challenged in a proceeding of criminal revision u/s 397, Cr. P.C.

The present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move the proper forum for proper relief.