KAPIL SIROHIversusState of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

                                        Judgement Reserved on 06.07.2026
                                       Judgement Delivered on 11.09.2026
                                                                  A.F.R.
               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17877 of 2024

Kapil Sirohi
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :      Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :      G.A., Vinay Kumar Tripathi

Court No. - 91
                      HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and
3, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I assisted by Mrs. Ladli Pandey,
learned A.G.A. and Sri Vijay Mishra, learned Brief holder for the State
and perused the records.

2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to
quash the entire proceedings including the impugned judgement and order
dated 10.7.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mathura in Maintenance Case No. 679 of 2018 (Smt. Rakhi and another
Vs. Kapil Sirohi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Raya, District
Mathura, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura,
whereby the applicant has been directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs. 5,000/ in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs. 3000/- in favour
of opposite party no. 3 (son), in pursuance of compromise dated
19.7.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, that the order passed by
the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the facts and
evidence on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the
Family Court, while passing the order dated 10.07.2023 did not consider
the financial status and the source of income of the applicant, therefore,
illegality has been committed by the Family Court. Learned counsel for
                                                         A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               2


the applicant submitted that, learned Principal Judge concerned
considered the income of the applicant from different sources, whereas
financial capacity of the applicant was not to that extent, as has been
assessed by the learned Principal Judge concerned and prayed that the
said order dated 10.7.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2
submitted that, the order passed by the learned Family Court is in
accordance with law. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted
that, there is other litigation pending between the parties in as much as,
the case under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. etc. was filed against the
applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted, that the
applicant herein has straightway filed the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and the
same is not maintainable, as he has alternative efficacious remedy to file a
revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted, that
applicant is having statutory remedy to file revision under Section 19 of
Family Courts Act, 1984(hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1984') read with
Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, referred to
as ,Cr.P.C, therefore this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has raised a legal issue, that as
far as exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same, is
barred, as an alternative efficacious remedy of revisional jurisdiction is
available to the applicant herein. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
first of all referred and relied upon the scheme of family court, which
reads as under:-

Statutory Scheme Governing Maintenance -The relevant extract of
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to
maintenance of wives, children and parents, is reproduced
hereinbelow:

Section 125 - Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents,

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain.-

          (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               3


          (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
          whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

          (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a
          married daughter) who has attained majority, where
          such child is, by reason of any physical or mental
          abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

          (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself
          or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal,
order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of
his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such
magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child
referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her
majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor
female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this
sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the
expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable,
and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to
time direct:

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the
interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second
proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the
date of the service of notice of the application to such person.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this Chapter.-

(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian
Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               4


majority;

(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if
so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.";]

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with
the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a
warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying
fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each
month's 4[allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding , as the case may be] remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one month or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount
due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy
such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became
due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on
condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such
Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may
make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation.-If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman
or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's
refusal to live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance
or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding , as the case may
be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if,
without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if
they are living separately by mutual consent.
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                                5


(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under
this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she
refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by
mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

126 Procedure.

(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in
any district -

(a)where he is, or

(b)where he or his wife resides, or

(c)where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the
mother of the illegitimate child.

(2) All evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the
person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to
be made or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed
for summons cases :Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the
person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to
be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the
Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex
parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on
an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to
such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as
the Magistrate may think just and proper.

(3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have
power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

127. Alteration in allowance.

(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving
under section 125 a monthly allowance, for the maintenance or interim
maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly
allowance for the maintenance, or interim maintenance, to his wife, child,
father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such
                                                      A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                              6


alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the
interim maintenance, as the case may be.

(2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that in consequence of any
decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125
should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case
may be, vary the same accordingly.

(3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a
woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her
husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that -

(a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, re-married, cancel such
order as from the date of her re-marriage;

(b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has
received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of
the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the
parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order -

(i)in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date
on which such order was made;

(ii)in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for
which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman;

(c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had
voluntarily surrendered her rights to [maintenance or interim
maintenance as the case may be, after her divorce, cancel the order from
the date thereof.

(4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance
or dowry by any person, to whom a [monthly allowance for the
maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them has been ordered]
[Substituted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] to be paid
under Section 125, the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which
has been paid to, or recovered by such person as monthly allowance for
the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them, as the case may
be, in pursuance of the said order.
                                                        A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               7


6. The relevant provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, relating to the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court and the Sessions Court, are reproduced hereinbelow:

397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the
record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate
within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence
or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings
of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that
the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is
in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending
the examination of the record. Explanation. -All Magistrates, whether
Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the
purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person
either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application
by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

7. The relevant provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984, relating to appellate and revisional remedies, are reproduced
hereinbelow:

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act ,1984, which is as follows:-

(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything
contained in the code 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from
every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family
Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               8


(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court
with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX
of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):Provided that
nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a
High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of criminal
procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the The Family
Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (59 of 1991).

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of
thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and
examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate
within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as
to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an
interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.

(5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from
any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.

(6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench
consisting of two or more Judges.

8. The non-maintainability and restricted scope of petitions under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging
maintenance orders passed under Section 125-128 Cr.P.C. / Family
Courts Act, 1984 is well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
various High Courts related to chapter IX of the Cr.P.C., along with
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Under the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant, special
statutory revision pathways override general inherent powers.
Furthermore, Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized as a "second revision
in disguise" to bypass statutory bars like Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., nor can
the High Court enter into mini-trials or re-appraise factual evidence
regarding income and desertion in summary maintenance proceedings.
Even in cases where a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is mistakenly
filed, settled judicial precedent mandates converting such petitions into
                                                         A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                                9


statutory revisions rather than routinely exercising inherent jurisdiction.

9. In this regard learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 placed reliance
upon catena of judgments .The exact paragraph-wise ratio decidendi and
dictas of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts governing
this issue are set out below:

(i) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra : (1977) 4 SCC 551
Paragraph 8 of the judgmnet is reproduced as under :-

           "9. At the outset the following principles may be
           noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent
           power of the High Court which have been" followed
           ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring
           a few exceptions:

           (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is
           a specific provision in the Code for the redress of
           the grievance of the aggrieved party ;

           (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to
           prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise
           to secure the ends of justice;

           (3) That it should not be exercised as against the
           express bar of law engrafted in any other provision
           of the Code."

(ii). Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka :1990 Supp(1)
SCC 132, Paragraph 2 of the judgmnet is reproduced as under :-

           " The question for consideration is as to whether the
           bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. should have been
           taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of
           the State Government or action taken by the High
           Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be
           sustained. It is not disputed by counsel appearing
           for the State that the move before the High Court
           was really on application for revision of the order of
                                                     A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                            10


         the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly
         what is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
         Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High
         Court for exercise of its inherent power was being
         invoked the statutory bar could not have been
         overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision
         application facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the
         Code could be labelled as one under Section 482.
         We are satisfied that this is a case where the High
         Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision."

(iii) Dharampal v. Ramshri :(1993) 1 SCC 435, Paragraph 4 of the
judgmnet is reproduced as under :-

         "It is now well-settled that the inherent powers
         under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for
         exercising powers which are expressly barred by the
         Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in
         entertaining the second revision at the instance of
         1st respondent. On this short ground itself, the
         impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."

(iv) Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Ors. : (1997) 4 SCC 241 ,
Paragraph 10 of the judgmnet is reproduced as under :-

         "Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by
         Section 397(3) of the Code, a person
         accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take
         recourse to the revision to the High Court under
         Section 397 (1) or under inherent power of the High
         Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may
         amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section
         397 (3) or section 397(2) of the Code."

(v). Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172,
Paragraph 32 of the judgmnet is reproduced as under :-

         "The High Court did not commit an error in
                                                      A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                             11


          rejecting the application filed by appellant under
          Section 482 Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of the
          High Court given under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to
          be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The
          Family Court in passing order dated 05.01.2019 has
          done substantial justice in reviving the maintenance
          application of the wife which need no interference
          by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
          under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

(vi). Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben : 2024 INSC 962 ; In SLP
(CRL.) NO(S). 15909 of 2023), Paragraph 7 and 10 of the judgmnet
are reproduced as under :-

          "This Court has, in a catena of decisions, provided
          that nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for
          doing substantive justice, the High Court can always
          convert a petition under Section 482 CrPC to a
          revision under Section 397 CrPC and vice versa.
          The approach of the High Court in dismissing the
          petition filed by the appellant under Section 482
          CrPC on the hyper technical ground that she had to
          avail the remedy of revision cannot be
          appreciated..." "The judicious approach would have
          been to convert the petition under Section 482 CrPC
          into a revision under Section 397 CrPC.

(vii) Ashu Jain v. State of U.P. In Application U/S 482 No. - 15078 of
2023; Allahabad High Court, Paragraph 18 & 19 of the judgmnet are
reprodauced as under :-

          "order of maintenance affects right of a person
          drastically and substantially, hence, it cannot be
          treated as interlocutory order and criminal revision
          should be preferred under Section 19(4) of the
          Family Courts Act against the order passed on the
          application for interim maintenance by the Family
                                                        A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               12


           Court." .. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
           not maintainable."

(viii) Nitish Kumar v. Neha Kumari: In Cr. MMO No.1083 of 2022;
Himachal Pradesh High Court, Paragraph 13 of the judgmnet is
reproduced as under :-

           "Therefore, it is apparent that the Court cannot
           exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when
           an alternative remedy is available. Since an
           alternative remedy under Section 19(4) of the
           Family Courts Act is available; therefore, the
           petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not lie
           before this Court."

10. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that there
is an efficacious alternate available remedy being exercised by the parties.
The parties by their choice, sometimes, invoke revisional jurisdiction of
this Court and sometimes extraordinary jurisdiction and therefore, judicial
discipline and appropriateness is required to be maintained, not only by
the aggrieved party, but every litigant approaching this Court. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there is clear cut
differentiation and classification inasmuch as, the entire proceedings are
concerned and the effect of a single order is concerned.

11. Meaning and scope of quashing the entire proceedings and single
order, when quashed, renders the entire proceedings into nullity.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that, if a single order
is quashed and set aside, the same renders the entire proceedings in nullity
or by setting aside the single order, the entire proceedings also comes to
an end. Say for example, if an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
granting maintenance to any party is finally set aside by this Court, in that
event, the entire proceedings arising out of the said case thereof, also
comes to an end, whereas in case of offence pertaining to Indian Penal
Code/ BNS, the law comes into motion, when tehrir is submitted to police
station and the same is converted into case crime/FIR, thereafter, the
investigation is conducted and while conducting the investigation, the
concerned Investigation officer shall submit police report, either a final
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                              13


report is submitted having found no evidence against the accused persons
or a chargesheet is filed. Upon filing the chargesheet, the competent court
shall proceed to conduct an inquiry and frame charge against the accused
persons. When charge is framed, the case is proceeded to conduct trial in
the matter and during the course of trial, the witnesses are being examined
or cross examined. After completion of evidence, there may also be
possibility, that any party may file appropriate application under Section
311 Cr.P.C/ 348 BNSS and 319 Cr.P.C./358 BNSS as the case may be.
Thereafter, the statements of accused persons are recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C./ 351 ,BNSS and the accused persons may also adduce
defence evidence, if so advised. Hence, from lodging of FIR, till
recording of defence evidence by the accused persons, a number of steps
and events take place. Therefore, if an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is moved before this Court, then the entire proceedings
may contain the bringing of criminal law into motion i.e. lodging of FIR
and subsequent steps; such as filing police report, framing of charge,
adducing of evidence or disposal of any other application moved during
the course of trial and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Hence, if an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, involving
sections under I.P.C./B.N.S. is filed against a single order, that may not
lead to quashing of entire criminal proceedings arising out of said FIR.
But in a case, where a final order has been passed under Section 125
Cr.P.C./ 144 BNSS, in that case, if such an order is quashed and set aside,
then the entire proceedings come to an end. Therefore, there is large
differentiation and variation, as far as, offences under Indian Penal Code
and BNSS are concerned and granting of maintenance under Chapter IX
Cr.P.C. are concerned. Section 125 Cr.P.C. or consequences, such as
setting aside the ex-pare decree, enhancement of maintenance allowance
under Section 127 Cr.P.C./ 146 BNSS and execution of maintenance
decree under Section 128 Cr.P.C./ 147 BNSS. All the sections under
Chapter-IX Cr.P.C. have a definite procedure and the nature of relief
being sought by the aggrieved persons. Therefore, the procedural law as
evolved under Chapter-IX Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the same
degree and effect, with offences under IPC/BNS, as the offences under
Indian Penal Code have a very wide connotation and consequence and the
entire criminal law devolves under Indian Penal Code/ BNS, therefore, a
clear cut line has to be drawn in respect of of offences covered under
                                                       A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                               14


Indian Penal Code/BNS and the proceedings under Sections 125 Cr.P.C./
144 BNSS, 126 Cr.P.C./ 145 BNSS, 127 Cr.P.C./ 146 BNSS and 128
Cr.P.C./ 147 BNSS, covered under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C./BNSS.

12. Another aspect that deals with the situation is that, once an order is
passed by a competent court of law, it is not only desired, but expected
that judicial discipline be maintained as far as possible by passing any
order on the subject in the cases of maintenance i.e. Chapter -IX of
Cr.P.C. from the Section 125 Cr.P.C./ 144 BNSS to 128 Cr.P.C./ 147
BNSS. The revisional jurisdiction has been provided against any order
passed under Sections 125, 126, 127, 128 Cr.P.C./ BNSS. But sometime,
it is seen that the aggrieved party in first instance avails revisional
jurisdiction before this Court and thereafter a remedy under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is preferred as and when a recovery warrant is issued
by the competent family court, whereas, there is no bar that remedy under
Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS cannot be exercised, but once an order is
passed by learned Family Court and has been affirmed by this Court, the
same cannot be challenged time and again in the garb of challenging the
entire proceedings, but for the reason that, once the order, which has been
challenged in revisional jurisdiction and has been adjudicated upon on
merit, the same cannot be re-challenged by going through another remedy
under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS. Therefore, once the order
challenged before this Court in revisional jurisdiction becomes final, thus,
the same cannot be challenged in another jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, just in the garb of challenging the entire proceedings,
therefore, the pretext of challenging the same order through Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS indirectly is not permissible, as Single Bench of this
Court has once decided the issue or upheld/ set aside the order passed by
learned Family Court, the same cannot be reopened in another
proceedings initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS.

13. Under the circumstances, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
various High Courts, the appropriate remedy is available to the litigants
challenging the order passed under Sections 125, 126, 127 & 128 Cr.P.C./
144, 145, 146 &147 BNSS, by way of a revisional jurisdiction before this
Court in the first instance and not under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS,
as the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, and to say
                                                                                           A482 No. 17877 of 2024
                                                                  15


                                    that as far as the case of Prabhu Chawla vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr
                                    on 5 September, 2016 :2016 (16) SCC 30, is concerned, the Hon'ble
                                    Supreme Court has already held that, there is no bar of invoking
                                    jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, but the issue of entire
                                    proceedings viz-viz upholding or setting aside single order in revisional
                                    jurisdiction being exercised under Sections 125, 126, 127, 128 Cr.P.C./
                                    144, 145, 146 &147 BNSS was not taken into consideration and the case
                                    of Prabhu Chawla (Supra) was confined to the offences made under
                                    Indian Penal Code only. Hence by having a Conjoint reading of Section
                                    19 of Family Court Act and Section 397 Cr.P.C., a clear cut distinction
                                    can be made with respect to maintenance cases filed under Chapter IX
                                    Cr.P.C./BNSS and the offences covered under IPC. Therefore, cases
                                    falling under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C./ X of BNSS and the order passed
                                    thereunder, can be challenged in revisional jurisdiction and not by
                                    invoking the power enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.

                                    14. Hence, it is directed that, as far as, Chapter IX of Cr.P.C./ X of BNSS
                                    is concerned, the appropriate legal remedy lies, by invoking the revisional
                                    jurisdiction and not permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS.

                                    15. Under the circumstances, it is held that appropriate remedy for
                                    seeking challenge to any order passed under Sections 125, 126, 127 and
                                    128 Cr.P.C. is the revisional jurisdiction.

                                    16. The present application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
                                    dismissed being not maintainable, however, liberty is given to the
                                    applicant to seek appropriate legal remedy of revision, if so advised.


                                                                                             (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Gss




Digitally signed by :-
GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad