Summary of Opinion — Crl.RC.No.2187 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Madras)

Factual and Procedural Background

This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by Aishwariya and her minor son G. Vetri (petitioners) against G. Ra. Gokul (respondent). The petitioners sought to set aside a common order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in M.P.No.1205 of 2024 in M.C.No.415 of 2023. The impugned interlocutory order had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking a refund of school fees of the second petitioner as redundant. The petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case, purportedly under Section 438 and 442 of B.N.S.S., to challenge that interlocutory order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order, in view of the bar under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., when the present revision challenges the interlocutory order passed in M.P.No.1205 of 2024 in M.C.No.415 of 2023.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is concise and proceeds as follows:

1. The court states the settled legal proposition that no revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order and that such revision is barred by Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
2. Applying that principle to the present case, the court observes that the revision before it is directed against an interlocutory order passed in M.P.No.1205 of 2024 in M.C.No.415 of 2023; therefore, the revision is not maintainable under the statutory bar.
3. Consequently, the court concludes that the Criminal Revision Case must be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. The court further notes procedural and practical directions: the petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies within the pending maintenance case; because the maintenance proceeding is summary in nature, it can be decided on the affidavit of assets and liabilities of the parties; and the Family Court judge is directed to dispose of the main maintenance case (M.C.) within two months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE

Direct consequences for the parties:

• The Criminal Revision Petition challenging the interlocutory order is dismissed for lack of maintainability under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
• The petitioners remain entitled to pursue remedies in the pending maintenance proceeding rather than by this revision; the Family Court is directed to decide the main maintenance case within two months, permitting reliance on affidavits of assets and liabilities.

Broader implications: the opinion does not purport to lay down any new legal precedent; it applies the established bar on revision against interlocutory orders and gives case-specific procedural directions.