KALADHARAN Vs. KAVITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad on an application for interim maintenance in a proceeding brought under S. 125 Cr.P.C., is under challenge in this revision brought under S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Though the revision proceeded at the initial stage with an order admitting the revision to files, the question of law was subsequently raised, as to whether this revision is maintainable under S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. While providing remedy of revision against orders passed by Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, sub-section (4) of S. 19 of the Family Courts Act excludes revision against interlocutory orders from its purview. S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has only limited scope, that revision can be brought under the Section only against orders passed by Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Parties to proceedings under S. 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court cannot resort to the general remedy provided under S. 397 of Cr.P.C. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with (a) grant of maintenance to wife, minor children and parents who are not capable of maintaining themselves, (b) procedure on such claims, (c) execution of orders made on such claims, (d) alteration or modification of orders passed under S. 125 Cr.P.C. etc. The last part of S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act provides that revision cannot be filed against interlocutory orders. Interim maintenance order is, no doubt, interlocutory order. Ss. 125 to 128 in Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with so many situations and orders, and most of them will have the character of final orders. But an interim order granting maintenance is always subject to final order under S. 125 Cr.P.C., and such an order can very well be modified or varied by the Family Court. In short, such an order granting maintenance for a limited period will have only limited force and effect, tenure wise. It cannot go beyond the proceedings, and it is always subject to modifications or variations by the court which passed the order. Such an order will not also decide the material issue between the parties, involved in the lis. Thus I find that an order passed under S. 125 Cr.P.C., granting interim maintenance, is an interlocutory order against which revision cannot be filed under S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The revision petitioner will have to pursue other remedies possible under the law. Of course when an order is passed by a court of law, and one of the parties is aggrieved by the order, law definitely provides remedy. But in the case of an interim order of maintenance, the proper and legal remedy is not revision under S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. It would be inappropriate for me to say in this revision, what those remedies are. Any way the revision petitioner is not remedy less, and he can pursue such remedies otherwise possible under the law. Without prejudice to the right to pursue such remedies, this revision will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.