Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharmendra SinghversusPriyanka Devi

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

An order under Section 125 of the CrPC is an intermediate/quasi‑final order, not merely interlocutory, and is therefore subject to criminal revision under Sections 125‑128.

Summary

The husband filed a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 21 September 2024 that allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant’s counsel relied on a Full Bench decision in Dr. Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, which held that an order under Section 125 is not merely interlocutory but an intermediate or quasi‑final order, making a criminal revision permissible under Sections 125‑128 of the CrPC. On this basis, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal and instead pursue a criminal revision. The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the appellant liberty to file a criminal revision. The court also directed the return of the vakalatnama and a certified copy of the impugned order to the appellant’s counsel.

Issues considered

  • Whether an order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an interlocutory order or an intermediate/quasi‑final order.
  • Whether a criminal revision is available against such an order under Sections 125‑128 of the CrPC.
  • Whether the appellant may withdraw the Miscellaneous Appeal and pursue a criminal revision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Family Courts Act
  • Section 125 CrPC
  • Criminal revision
  • Intermediate order
  • Appeal withdrawal

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      Miscellaneous Appeal No.376 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Dharmendra Singh Son of Umesh Singh, Resident of Village- Parmeshri,
                 P.O.- Vairiya, P.S.- Mali, District- Aurangabad (Bihar).

                                                                              ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
                 Priyanka Devi Wife of Dharmendra Singh, Resident of Village- Parmeshri,
                 P.O.- Vairiya, P.S.- Mali, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, At present- D/o Yugal
                 Singh, Resident of Village- Tetarain, P.S.-Simara, District- Aurangabad
                 (Bihar).

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :       Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh
                 For the Respondent/s   :       Mr.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
                         and
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH )

2   16-06-2026              1. The instant Miscellaneous Application under Section

                   19(4) of the Family Court’s Act 1984 has been preferred by the

                   appellant (husband) against the order dated 21.09.2024,

                   whereby application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. of

                   respondent (wife) has been allowed.

                          2. On the matter being taken up, at the outset, learned

                   counsel for the appellant submits that the Full Bench of this

                   Court in the case of Dr. Dilip Kumar Sharma @ Dilip Sharma

                   Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8236 :

                   2025 (1) BLJ 1] has held that the order passed under Section

                   125 of the Cr. P.C. is not an ‘interlocutory order’, but an
            Patna High Court MA No.376 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
                                                        2/2




                      ‘intermediate / quasi final order’, hence remedy of criminal

                      revision would be available qua both the interim and final order

                      under Section 125 to 128 of the Cr. P.C.

                              3. He further submits that in the light of the aforesaid Full

                      Bench judgment, the appellant does not want to press this

                      Miscellaneous Appeal, therefore, he may be allowed to

                      withdraw this Miscellaneous Appeal with liberty to file criminal

                      revision against the order dated 21.09.2024.

                              4. In view of the above, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal

                      is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file

                      criminal revision.

                              5. Office is directed to return the Vakalatnama and

                      certified copy of impugned order dated 21.09.2024 to the

                      learned counsel for the appellant within three days after

                      retaining the xerox copy of the same on record.



                                            (Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)


                                              (Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Prakash/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.