Order Passed In Pending Proceedings Which Doesn't Finally Decide Rights & Liabilities Of Parties Are 'Interlocutory': Sikkim HC
The Sikkim High Court observed 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.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the Order passed by the Family Court which directed the Revisionist to pay interim maintenance of ₹25k per month.
The bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed, “…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.”
Advocate Gita Bista appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Kazi Sangay Thupden appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the Respondent had filed a Petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of ₹1L per month for herself and her daughter. The Revisionist opposed the Petition, claiming the Respondent had left the matrimonial home voluntarily. He raised a jurisdictional objection under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹25k per month. However, following a Supreme Court directive for mediation, the interim maintenance was reduced to ₹15,000. The matter is now pending before the Mediation Centre.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra and quoted, “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, is 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.”
The Court said that the Revisionist cannot put the cart before the horse and rush to the Court on perceptions of injustice.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition for being premature.
Cause Title: Sujit Kumar Saha v. Laxmi Gupta
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Gita Bista and Pratikcha Gurung
Respondent: Advocates Kazi Sangay Thupden, Sajal Sharma, Som Maya Gurung and Prerana Rai