Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Can i institute cri. rev. petition against order of interim maintenance in session court

(Querist) 29 September 2012 This query is : Resolved 
R/ sir,
can i institute cri. rev. petition against order passed by lower court of interim maintenance in the session court.
can I challenge in session court? please give me citation.
please give me some citation about above matter as early as possible.
Thanking You,
Yours,
Mazhar baig,
Vaijapur dist. Aurangabad (m.s.)




























































































R.K Nanda (Expert) 29 September 2012
yes, u can file revision petition in session

court.
Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 30 September 2012
Citation for what? Being an advocate you know that revision lies against order of magistrate to sessions court or high court.
So go for that.
Read sections 395- 401 crpc.
Ashimta Lekhi Malhotra (Expert) 30 September 2012
Yes a revision would lie to the Sessions.
Rajeev Kumar (Expert) 30 September 2012
Yes you can file.
Adv. mazhar baig (Querist) 04 November 2012
r/sir, according to your opinion i have institute cri. rev. petition cr.pc 397 against interim maintenance which was passed by lower court. At the time of argument apposite counsel took action that interlockery order shall not entertain in session court.
session judge gave me 10 days for to submit ruling or citation about interlockery order shall entertain or not in session court.
so i request you all please give me citation or ruling about cri. rev. petition against interim maintenance passed by lower court
ajay sethi (Expert) 04 November 2012
no doubt that no revision is permissible under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. against an interlocutory order. However, in appropriate cases, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 is

competent enough to intervene or set aside or modify even an interlocutory order in case it has resulted in abuse of process of law or is causing grave miscarriage of justice.
ajay sethi (Expert) 04 November 2012
Rakhi v. Pankaj Kumar 123 (2005) DLT 262 wherein in para No.5 this Court has held as under:- "5. Looking at the matter as it stands it appears that the judgment under challenge is erroneous and that the learned Additional Sessions ought not to have interfered at a stage when the

Metropolitan Magistrate fixed only the interim amount in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C."


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :