JHARNA ROY (NEE BERA) Vs. SAMAR KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revisional application arises out of an order passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in connection with Misc. Case No. 221 of 2006 rejecting the petitioner s prayer for interim maintenance.

(2.) Mr. Kaushik Chanda, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party at the very outset challenged the maintainability of this application on the ground that this order is an interlocutory order and thus in view of clear prohibition contained in Section 19 sub-section (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 no revision lies against the same.

(3.) It is true that according to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 19 no criminal revision lies against an interlocutory order passed in connection with any proceeding pending before the Family Court but at the same time such an order when is manifestly illegal and erroneous and clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of process of Court and/or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act can limit or affect the exercise of inherent power by the High Court.