THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
th
Dated : 12 September, 2024
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
SINGLE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.P. No.05 of 2024
Revisionist/Petitioner : Sujit Kumar Saha
versus
Respondent : Laxmi Gupta
Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate with Ms. Pratikcha Gurung, Advocate for
the Petitioner/Revisionist.
Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden, Advocate with Mr. Sajal Sharma, Ms. Som
Maya Gurung and Ms. Prerana Rai for the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Revisionist is before this Court impugning the
Order dated 09-04-2024, of the Court of the Learned Judge, Family
Court, at Namchi District, Sikkim, in Family Court (Criminal) Case
No.22 of 2023 (Laxmi Gupta vs. Sujit Kumar Saha). The case of the
Revisionist/Respondent ( Revisionist is that, the
hereinafter the “ ”)
Respondent/Petitioner had filed a
(hereinafter the “Respondent”),
Petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts
the “Cr.P.C.”),
Act, 1984, before the Learned Family Court, claiming maintenance
for herself and for her daughter, -
amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/
(Rupees one lakh) only, per month, from the Revisionist.
2. While objecting to the said Petition, the Revisionist
averred in his response that the Respondent was not entitled to the
maintenance claimed as she had wilfully left her matrimonial home.
Crl.Rev.P. No.05 of 2024
Sujit Kumar Saha vs. Laxmi Gupta 2
In the interim, the Revisionist was again before the Learned Family
Court with an application under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. claiming
that the Learned Family Court had no jurisdiction to consider the
matter as the Respondent was not a resident of Namchi, Sikkim,
but of Nepal, thereby disentitling her to the maintenance claimed.
The Respondent filed her response to the Section 126 Cr.P.C.
application.
3. The Learned Family Court took up both the Petitions
simultaneously for hearing but issued the impugned Order dated
09-04-2024, observing inter alia that in the interest of justice an
interim maintenance for two months be granted to the Respondent
- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, from
for a sum of ₹ 25,000/
April, 2024, till the pendency of the hearing of the Petitions. The
matter was thereafter ordered to be listed for further hearing on
10-06-2024, the Court being of the view that matters pertaining to
the parties was also before the Hon ble Supreme Court.
‟
4. The Respondent before the Supreme Court,
Hon‟ble
had sought a transfer of the proceedings filed by the Revisionist
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in MAT Suit No.43
of 2023 (Sujit Kumar Saha vs. Laxmi Gupta), from the Court of the
rd
Learned Additional District Judge, 3 Court, Malda, West Bengal, to
the Learned Family Court, Namchi, Sikkim. The Supreme Court
allowed the transfer of the said matrimonial dispute from Malda to
Namchi, vide Order dated 24-04-2024 in Transfer Petition(s) (Civil)
No(s).333 of 2024 (Laxmi Gupta vs. Sujit Kumar Saha). Vide the
Order of the Supreme Court dated 30-07-2024, in Miscellaneous
Application No.1258/2024, in Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).333
of 2024 (Laxmi Gupta vs. Sujit Kumar Saha) the Transferee Court,
i.e., the Learned Family Court, Namchi, was directed to make an
Crl.Rev.P. No.05 of 2024
Sujit Kumar Saha vs. Laxmi Gupta 3
endeavour for an amicable settlement of the dispute through
Mediation.
5. It is jointly submitted by Learned Counsel for the
parties that the Learned Family Court, at Namchi, on perusal of the
Orders of the Supreme Court, reduced the interim maintenance
- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, per month, to
from ₹ 25,000/
- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, per month, and referred
₹ 15,000/
the matter for Mediation in terms of the directions of the Supreme
Court. The Order granting such reduction is not before this Court,
however both parties jointly submit that such an order was indeed
issued by the Learned Family Court. There is no reason for this
Court to disbelieve the joint submissions of Learned Counsel for the
parties.
6. It is understood and also jointly submitted by Learned
Counsel for the parties that the matter is now pending before the
Mediation Centre, South Sikkim.
7. Admittedly, the Petition under Section 126 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the Revisionist is yet to be heard. Both parties
submit that they have filed their respective relevant documents
pertaining to their income before the Learned Family Court.
Pausing here momentarily, it is relevant to point out that the
Revisionist herein had filed the application under Section 126
Cr.P.C. but has given himself the nomenclature of Respondent
instead of Petitioner, which thereby creates a conundrum. The
Revisionist for the sake of clarity shall take necessary steps to
amend the Cause Title of the Petition under Section 126 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by him as he is the Petitioner and not the Respondent
therein.
Crl.Rev.P. No.05 of 2024
Sujit Kumar Saha vs. Laxmi Gupta 4
8. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and
perused all documents on record, it is apposite to cite here the
observation of the Supreme Court in
Madhu Limaye vs. The State of
1
which is extracted hereinbelow as follows;
Maharashtra
12. Ordinarily and generally the expression
“
interlocutory order has been understood and taken
„ ‟
to mean as a converse of the term final order . In
„ ‟
volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury’s Laws of
England at p. 742, however, it has been stated in
para 1606:
... a judgment or order may be final for one
purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to
part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the
two words must therefore be considered separately in
relation to the particular purpose for which it is
required.
In para 1607 it is said:
In general a judgment or order which
determines the principal matter in question is termed
.
“final”
In para 1608 at pp. 744 and 745 we find the words:
An order which does not deal with the final
rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before
judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters
in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or
(2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how
the declaration of right already given in the final
judgment, are to be worked out, is termed
„interlocutory‟. An interlocutory order, though not
conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as
to the subordinate matter with which it deals.
”
It is thus clear from the above pronouncement that if
an order is passed in a pending proceeding and the proceeding
does not terminate finally nor are rights and liabilities of the parties
decided in finality, then that order shall be considered as an
interlocutory order.
9. In the instant case, it is evident that the Order
- (Rupees
directing the Revisionist to pay maintenance of ₹ 25,000/
twenty five thousand) only, per month, on 09-04-2024 and
- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only,
thereafter reducing it to ₹ 15,000/
per month, is only an interlocutory order. Further the Petition
under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. has not even been heard by the
1
(1977) 4 SCC 551
Crl.Rev.P. No.05 of 2024
Sujit Kumar Saha vs. Laxmi Gupta 5
Learned Family Court, far be it to have even passed an interim
order under the said Petition. In the said circumstances, this Court
is not inclined to disturb the impugned Order of the Learned Family
Court granting interim maintenance when the rights and liabilities
of the parties have not attained finality.
10. The Revisionist cannot put the cart before the horse
and rush to this Court on perceptions of injustice. The Petition of
the Revisionist being premature deserves to be and is accordingly
dismissed.
11. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned
Family Court forthwith for information.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
12-09-2024
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl