‘An order passed under Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. rejecting or allowing an application for maintenance, pending proceedings, is not an interlocutory order which adjudicates the rights of the parties to some extent.’

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a revision petition against a family court order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.

Justice Lok Pal Singh observed that an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable against such an order.

The court was considering maintainability of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code. Some such petitions were filed against the rejection of interim maintenance applications and some were filed against allowing of the interim maintenance applications. All of them were passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Referring to various apex court judgments, the court observed that an order which adjudicates the rights of the parties on rejecting or allowing the interim maintenance application during proceedings cannot be said to be an interlocutory order.

It said: “This Court is of the view that an order passed under Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. rejecting or allowing an application for maintenance, pending proceedings, is not an interlocutory order which adjudicates the rights of the parties to some extent. The revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable. It has been held that such an order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court.”

On the maintainability of Section 482 petitions, the court added: “The powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are inherent in nature and could be exercised where statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the Cr.P.C. is not available. Thus, in view of the findings recorded above that revision against such an order is maintainable, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable.”