Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2009
---
Against the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by learned
Principle Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case
No.110 of 2007.
—
Rajeev Ranjan .... ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajni Kumari .... .....Opp. Parties
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
------------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
C.A.V on 14.09.2009 Pronounced on: 06.10.2009
Pradeep Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. This application is directed against the order dated 19.12.2008
passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case
No. 110 of 2007 by which order after hearing both the parties the learned
Principle Judge directed the petitioner-husband Rajeev Ranjan to pay Rs.
5000/- per month ad interim maintenance during the pendency of the
petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as
litigation cost.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner failed to give income of the husband and on a vague statement
that the husband is earning Rs. 15000/- per month from his consultancy
business and he has got his parental property granted the amount of Rs.
5000/- per month to the wife ad interim maintenance and also directed to
pay Rs. 10000/- per month which is beyond his capacity, and as such the
impugned order is bad and requires interference of this Court, otherwise it
will not be possible for the petitioner to pay the same.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-
wife Rajni Kumari has submitted that the impugned order is an interim
order and as per the judgment of this Court reported in 2005(4) JLJR
page 202 case of Uttam Kumar Choubey the Hon’ble High Court, no
Revision lies against the order of interim maintenance passed in a
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also relied in a similar decision
of Bombay High Court reported in 1992 Cr. LawJournal in the case of
Smt. Mamta versus A.M. Vaidya.
2
5. He has also stated that as per Section 19 of the Family Court Act,
also no revision or appeal against an interlocutory order, is maintainable.
6. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite party had relied in a
decision in 1998 Supreme Court A.I.R. page 128 case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd.
7. After hearing both the parties and going through the record I find
that the impugned order is clearly interim order of maintenance passed by
the Trial Court. However since it is interim order the learned Court below
has not come to any finding with regard to the income of the husband and
rightly it has been held in the case of Uttam Kumar Choubey 2005 (4)
JLJR page 202 that the procedure of Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. is a
summary procedure and quick remedy by way of maintenance to save the
destitute wife from starvation under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court
is empowered to either modify or even cancel the order passed by him
earlier at the final stage.
8. However, although an interim order has been passed but since it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that just prior to this order
as admitted by the wife- complainant, in her evidence, she also herself
filed in her counter affidavit that she received about more than rupees two
lacs and as such it is not a case whether she is on the verge of starvation
or in destitute condition. Hence some relief may be granted to the
petitioner who is unable to make payment.
9. In that view of the matter impugned order is modified as per interim
order passed on 01.05.2009 till final order is passed. Petitioner is directed
to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party-wife
and also to pay Rs. 5000/- litigation cost, the impugned order is
accordingly modified to that extent.
10. With the aforesaid modification this revision application is
dismissed.
[Pradeep Kumar, J]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
The 6th day of Oct 2009
Anit/NAFR