[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Shivi Sudarshan vs Smt. Deepa Sudarshan on 15 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1039 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Shivi Sudarshan, S/o Rohit Kiran Singh R/o Dharfari House, Club Road, B
203, PS- Mithanpura, PO- Ramna, Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Smt. Deepa Sudarshan, W/o Shivi Sudarshan, D/o Ram Nath Mishra At
Dharfari Enclave, Club Road, Post- Ramna, P.S. - Mithanpura, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur. Presently Residing at Shiv Puri Damu Chowk, Post- Kazi
Mohammadpur, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
1. The petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party.
Their marriage was solemnized on 8th of May, 2007. In the
month of January, 2023, the Opposite Party filed an application
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying
for maintenance allowance, alleging, inter alia, that after
solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner, it was
consummated and in the wedlock, she gave birth to a male
child, who is aged about 16 years. The petitioner deals with a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
2/13
catering business and earns Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs per year. It is also
alleged that the petitioner is addicted to liquor and in the
influence of intoxication, he used to treat the Opposite Party
with cruelty. On 10th of December, 2023, he drove her away
from her matrimonial home, when she demanded some money
to buy medicine. Again, she stated that she has been residing
with her parent since 10th of December, 2018. It is also pleaded
that the petitioner has no source of income. Therefore, she
demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance per month and
Rs. 15,000/- as interim maintenance till the disposal of the
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
2. By an order, dated 23rd of August, 2024, the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur passed an order of
ad interim maintenance to be paid by the petitioner in favour of
the Opposite Party at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month within
10th day of each succeeding month till the final disposal of the
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
3. The said order is under challenge in the instant
revision.
4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Opposite Party, at the outset, submits that Criminal Revision
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
3/13
maintainable against an order of ad interim maintenance.
5. In support of his contention, he refers to an
unreported decision of this Court of a learned Single Judge,
passed in Criminal Revision No. 623 of 2011 on 29 th of
November, 2013.
6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Opposite Party also refers to an unreported decision in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 22165 of 2016, decided on 16th of
September, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of this Court,
holding as hereunder: –
“In view of the discussions made above, we
are of the view that the only remedy, available
to the petitioner, is to make an application
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
before this Court, if he is so aggrieved by the
order of the interim maintenance, dated 10th of
February, 2016, passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Munger.”
7. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, challenging an order of interim maintenance is not
maintainable before the High Court.
8. In view of the above question regarding
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
4/13
maintainability, raised before this Court, it is necessary to
examine the above-mentioned unreported decisions in the light
of the subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
other High Courts to come to a finding as to whether the law
that no revision is maintainable against an order of ad interim
maintenance is still hold good in view of the judgment passed in
Criminal Revision No. 623 of 2011 (supra).
9. Second and third proviso of Section 125 was
inserted by Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 50 of 2001
w.e.f. 24th September, 2001. The relevant portion runs thus: –
“Provided further that the
Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance for
the maintenance under this sub-section, order
such person to make a monthly allowance for
the interim maintenance of his wife or such
child, father or mother, and the expenses of
such proceeding which the Magistrate
considers reasonable, and to pay the same to
such person as the Magistrate may from time
to time direct.
Provided also that an application
for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding
under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days from
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
5/13
the date of the service of notice of the
application to such person.”
10. Thus, the Statute used the term interim
maintenance which a wife; legitimate or illegitimate minor
child; legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority,
where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself or father or
mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, is entitled to get
in view of the amended provision of the Cr.P.C. w.e.f. from 24h
of September, 2001.
11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Revision No. 623 of 2011 (supra) held that the order, granting
interim maintenance is in the nature of interlocutory order and
on account thereof, revision in terms of Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act is found barred.
12. The Co-ordinate Bench relied on the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath’s case as well as
Madhu Limaye’s case, while identifying the nature of order
under two categories:
(a) final order
(b) interlocutory order wherein, it has been held that
any order passed at any stage of the proceeding in case decides
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
6/13the issue in question in its finality, then in that event, the order
impugned cannot be termed as an interlocutory order.
13. The same question with regard to revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court came up for consideration before
a three Judges Bench decision in Girish Kumar Suneja v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2017) 14 SCC
809. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
“17 The concept of an intermediate
order first found mention in Amar Nath v. State
of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 137] in which case
the interpretation and impact of Section 397
(2) of the Cr.P.C. came up for consideration.
This decision is important for two reasons.
Firstly it gives the historical reason for the
enactment of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and
secondly considering that historical
background, it gives a justification for a
restrictive meaning to Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.”
14. It is needless to say that Sub-section (2) of Section
397 of the Cr.P.C. specifically bars that the powers of revision
conferred by Section (1) of Section 397 shall not be exercised in
relation to interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry,
trial or other proceedings.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
7/13
15. The concept of intermediate order was further
elucidated in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra [1977 4
SCC 551], by contra-distinguishing a final order and an
interlocutory order. This decision lays down a principle that an
intermediate order is one, which is interlocutory in nature, but
when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceeding
and thereby resulting in a final order. To such intermediate
orders immediately come to mind an order taking cognizance of
an offence and summoning an accused and an order framing
charges. Prima facie, these orders are interlocutory in nature,
but when an order of taking cognizance and summoning an
accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the
proceeding against that person resulting in a final order in his or
her favour. Similarly, an order of framing charges, if reversed,
has the effect of discharging an accused 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 proceeding would
terminate, but if passed in another way, the proceeding would
continue.
16. In Girish Kumar Suneja (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred its earlier decision in the case of K. K.
Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 195,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
8/13
wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of
cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: –
“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, Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v.
State through CBI [1980 Supp SCC 92] and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam
[(1999) 3 SCC 134]). 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.”
17. At this juncture, a question naturally arises as to
whether an order of interim maintenance is an interlocutory
order or an intermediate order.
18. I have already pointed out consistent decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, referred to above, that it
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
9/13
is immaterial as to whether the impugned order is passed at an
interim stage or at a final stage. An order is revisable if the order
would have been passed against the party in favour of whom the
order was passed would terminate the entire proceeding.
19. In a very recent decision, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction, the High Court at Delhi, vide judgment,
dated 1st of July, 2025, in Crl. Revision. P. (MAT) 172 of 2024
had occasion to discuss and distinguish between interim
relief/maintenance and ad interim relief/maintenance. It is held
as hereunder:
11. In law, interim relief is a
temporary relief granted by the Court after
hearing both parties, pending final
adjudication of the dispute. It is typically
granted upon consideration of pleadings,
replies, and after evaluating prima facie rights
and urgency. In contrast, ad-interim relief is a
provisional relief granted ex-parte or at the
initial stage, often before the opposite party is
served or has filed a reply. It is essentially an
urgent measure granted to prevent irreparable
harm, subject to further hearing and
confirmation.
12. As far as maintenance is
concerned, interim maintenance is an
allowance granted to the aggrieved party
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
10/13during the pendency of proceedings and till
final adjudication, such as under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. or the Domestic Violence Act,
generally after considering pleadings and
material placed by both parties. Ad-interim
maintenance, on the other hand, is a
provisional maintenance granted at the
preliminary stage, i.e. prior to adjudicating
even the interim maintenance, to alleviate
urgent hardship being faced by a dependent
spouse or child, pending a more detailed
consideration of the case. Thus, while both are
temporary in nature, the key difference lies in
the stage of grant, extent of hearing accorded
before the relief is granted, and the prima
facie opinion formed by the Court.”
13. In Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana:
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10492, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court also drew a clear
distinction between ad-interim maintenance
and interim or final maintenance. It was
observed that ad-interim maintenance is a
tentative arrangement, granted at a
preliminary stage, and is subject to final
determination of interim or permanent
maintenance. At the stage of granting ad
interim maintenance, the Court is only
required to form a prima facie opinion, based
on the material available on record.”
20. Finally, the learned Single Judge of Delhi High
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
11/13
Court considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and
held that an order of interim maintenance, if passed on the basis
of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, such
order is revisable.
21. In the instant case, the parties filed their
application and rejoinder, stating, inter alia, that the application
for interim maintenance filed by the Opposite Party was not
maintainable in the eyes of law.
22. Before hearing of the application for interim
maintenance, both the parties filed affidavits of assets and
liabilities. The parties also led their evidence. In course of
evidence, it is ascertained that the Opposite Party/wife received
a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father-in-law in order to
maintain her livelihood. She had already spent around Rs.
1,00,000/- and rest amount of 4,00,000/- is remaining in her
bank account. It is also ascertained from her evidence that she
has been residing in a portion of the house and she does not
have to pay any money towards her house rent, electricity and
water. For the rest expenditure, she does not have any source of
income.
23. The learned Trial Judge passed an order of interim
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
12/13
maintenance on the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
affidavits of assets and liabilities and evidence adduced by them
at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
24. It is needless to say that considering the status of
the parties and present day market price, the said sum of Rs.
10,000/- per month is not at all exorbitant for the petitioner to
pay.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds
that an order of interim maintenance passed under the 2nd
proviso of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the
pleadings, affidavits of assets and liabilities and prima facie
evidence of the parties, is an intermediate order and accordingly
revisable under Section 397 (1) of the Cr.P.C.
26. If the said order was passed in favour of the
petitioner, such order could have terminated entire proceeding
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. because of the fact that the trial
court passed the order on due consideration of the pleadings of
the parties and affidavits of assets and liabilities as well as prima
facie evidence adduced by them.
27. At the same time, I hold that the impugned order,
dated 23rd of August, 2024, passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, does not suffer from any
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2024 dt.15-07-2025
13/13
illegality or material irregularity and, therefore, the same is
affirmed and the instant revision is dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 26.06.2025 Uploading Date 15.07.2025 Transmission Date 15.07.2025
[ad_2]
Source link