SUNIL KUMAR SABHARWAL Vs. NEELAM SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short and significant question for our consideration is whether an order granted interim maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code so as to bar a revision.

(2.) ONLY a few facts need to be stated to give the factual background. During the pendency of a petition for maintenance the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, by order dated January 24, 1990 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 300/- per month to respondent No. 2 (minor son ). The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by order dated April 28, 1990 holding that the order of interim maintenance was not a final order and it was only an interlocutory order and as such revision was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge followed two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Pawan Kumar v. Chanchal Kumari, 1987 (2) Recent C. R. 454 and Harjit Singh v. Jasjit Kaur, 1989 (2) Recent C. R. 191. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the orders passed by both the Courts below. The petition was heard by our learned brother J. S. Sekhon, J. He noticed a conflict of views in the two decisions cited above as also another single Bench decision of this Court in Sumer Chand v. Sandhuran Rani and Anr. , (1988-2) P. L R. 11. Considering the importance of the question he admitted the petition to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has been heard by us.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has burdened the petitioner with considerable financial liability. If the petitioner failed to comply with, it he could he arrested and sent to jail. The order would ordinarily remain in force till final decision of the main petition which may take quite some time. It was submitted that if revision is held barred, the only remedy left with the aggrieved person was to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 402 of the Code with all the difficulties involved in such a course of action.