MURALIDHARAN Vs. MUTHARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revision cases have been filed against the common order passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.77 and 78 of 2016 confirming the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.2808 and 2811 of 2015. Crl.R.C.No.368 of 2018 is directed against the order of the trial Court, directing the petitioner/husband to secure an alternative accommodation of the same level employed by the petitioner/husband in the matrimonial home and was further directed to pay the rent and other expenses required to procure such accommodation, which order by the trial Court has also been confirmed in the appeal by the lower Appellate Court. The second revision case in Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2018 is directed against the payment of Rs.5000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, which has also been confirmed in the appeal by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband would submit that the direction as given by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court are contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code and hence they are liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel would submit that without examining the revision petitioner/husband the directions have been issued by the trial Court and unfortunately the directions were also confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.C.No.815 of 2009 dated 09.12.2009 ( Krishna Murthy Nookula vs. Savitha ). The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.15 to 19, which are extracted hereunder: "15.From sub-section (1) of Section 28 , it is clear that for all actions in a proceedings under Sections 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 and also under Section 31 , the procedure for enquiry as prescribed by the Cr.P.C ., 1973 shall be followed. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that even for grant of interim relief as is permissible under Section 23(1) of the Act, procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed. However, there is one exception which we must note from sub- section (2) of Section 28 . It reads thus: