Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 340 (RAJ)

Imman Husain v. Seema Bibi

2020-02-06

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 21.2.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh (for short? the revisional court'), whereby the revisional court while allowing the criminal revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent has filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of the ACJM, Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh (for short 'the court below') seeking monthly maintenance from the petitioner, who is her husband. The court below vide order dated 11.6.2018 directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month till final disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.6.2018 passed by the court below, the respondent preferred a criminal revision petition before the revisional court with a prayer for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the order passed by the court below of awarding interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent is an interlocutory order, no revision petition against the said order is maintainable as per the provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, but the revisional court without considering this aspect of the matter has erred in entertaining the revision petition filed on behalf of the respondent and has also erred in enhancing the amount of interim maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur passed in S.B. Criminal Revision No.483/2018 - Anshul Kulshreshtha Vs. Smt. Swarnima Kulshreshtha @ Soni decided on 31.8.2018 has submitted that this Court has also held that the order of granting interim maintenance is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the criminal revision petition challenging the same is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Swarnima Kulshreshtha @ Soni decided on 31.8.2018 has submitted that this Court has also held that the order of granting interim maintenance is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the criminal revision petition challenging the same is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the revisional court has no jurisdiction to entertain the criminal revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent, the order of enhancing the interim maintenance is not liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the petitioner deserted the respondent and, thereafter, solemnized second marriage and at present the respondent is residing with her father, who already have seven daughters including her. It is also submitted that the respondent has no means of earning her livelihood and she is totally depending upon her father, who is a very poor person. It is further submitted that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and in that respect, she has filed a criminal case against him wherein, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the judgment passed by this Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Anshul Kulshreshtha Vs. Smt. Swarnima Kulshreshtha @ Soni (supra), this Court has held that against the order of granting interim maintenance, criminal revision petition is not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice and looking to the condition of the respondent, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the revisional court. 9. Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed with a direction to the ACJM, Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh to decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the ACJM, Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh forthwith.