IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE4H DAY OF DECEMBER201313TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2356 of 2013 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRL.A. 106/2013 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED0409-2013 CMP NO.4835/12 IN CMP NO.4833/12 OF THE JFCM COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED223/2013. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------- N.S. PRASANNAN, AGED39YEARS, S/O.SARASIJAKSHAN, NARIKUZHIYIL VEEDU, URUMBINI, KOCHUKOICKAL POST, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH SRI.K.P.KAMALAKARA BABU SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. REKHA.R., AGED30YEARS, D/O. RAVEENDRAN, RATEESH BHAVAN, ATTACKAKAL POST, PAYYANAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0412-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 2356 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the respondent in C.M.P.No. 4835/12 in C.M.P. No.4833/12 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Pathanamthitta, as well as the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.106/13 on the files of the Court of Sessions, Pathanamthitta. He is the respondent in a petition filed under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance allowance and other reliefs under Sec.18 of the said Act. Along with the petition, the respondent herein filed C.M.P.No.4835/12 seeking an interim order directing the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance allowance to the respondent. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both Crl.R.P. No. 2356 of 2013 -:
2. :- parties, passed an order directing the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of `4,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent and `2,000/- per month to her child. Feeling aggrieved, this interim order was challenged in appeal before the Court of Sessions, Pathanamthitta, as Crl.Appeal No.106/13. After considering the rival contentions raised in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the interim order and dismissed the appeal. The legality and propriety of this order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. This revision petition is filed on various grounds challenging the merits of the judgment passed in appeal. But, it is seen that the appeal arises from an interim order seeking a direction to the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the 2nd respondent. Indisputably, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is an interim order. That interim order was challenged in appeal. I am of the opinion that though the interim order was challenged in appeal and the appellate court exercised the appellate jurisdiction on that interim order, the basic nature of the Crl.R.P. No. 2356 of 2013 -:
3. :- order will not change and it will always stand as an interim order only. Merely on the reason that an appeal has been filed against the interim order, that invocation of appellate jurisdiction does not alter the nature of the order appealed against.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited a decision in Baiju v. Latha (2011 (3) KLT109. Going by the said decision, it could be seen that the order appealed against, was a final order passed after trial. So, the basic order that has come up in revision after appeal was a final order, revisable in revision. It can never be an interim order passed under Sec.23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. So, above decision cited by the learned counsel does not render any assistance or help to get jurisdiction, in the instant case.
4. Going by Sec.397(2) of the Cr.P.C., it could be seen that powers of revision conferred under sub-section (1) of Sec.397 of the Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Further, I find that while interpreting Crl.R.P. No. 2356 of 2013 -:
4. :- the above section, emphasis must be given to the first limb that the powers conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order. A mere relation to an interlocutory order is sufficient to deny jurisdiction. Here, obviously, a challenge under this revision is against an order in relation to an interlocutory order. Therefore, I find that this revision is not maintainable before this Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge