The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal procedure: that even in revisional proceedings, the right to be heard cannot be denied. In a significant ruling, the Court quashed an interim maintenance order granted without notice to the accused, emphasizing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner, Ravi @ Rupesh, and the respondent, Smt. Nikki Kaurav. The respondent filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate in MJC No.126/2021. The Magistrate, by order dated 30.06.2021, rejected the application for interim maintenance. The petitioner, having secured this adverse order, relied on it as a settled right.
Key Facts
- The respondent filed the application for interim maintenance on an unspecified date prior to 30.06.2023
- The trial court rejected the application on 30.06.2023
- The respondent filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, on 21.07.2023
- On 22.07.2023, the revisional court allowed the revision and granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to the respondent
- No notice was issued to the petitioner before the revisional court passed the order
- The petitioner filed the present criminal revision on 15.08.2023 challenging the order dated 22.07.2023
Procedural History
- 30.06.2023: Trial Court (MJC No.126/2021) rejected application for interim maintenance
- 21.07.2023: Respondent filed Criminal Revision No.14/2023 before Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar
- 22.07.2023: Revisional court passed order granting Rs.5,000/month interim maintenance without hearing the petitioner
- 15.08.2023: Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.3530/2023 before the High Court, Gwalior
- 01.04.2026: High Court heard arguments and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, and restoration of the trial court’s order dated 30.06.2023 rejecting interim maintenance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a revisional court under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may grant interim maintenance without affording the opposite party an opportunity of hearing, even where such an order directly defeats a previously accrued right.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the revisional court acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by granting interim maintenance without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner. He emphasized that the trial court’s order dated 30.06.2023 had already extinguished the respondent’s claim, and the revisional court’s intervention without notice effectively nullified the petitioner’s vested right. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for appeal and must respect procedural safeguards.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel argued that Section 403 CrPC confers plenary powers on the revisional court to pass any order deemed fit, including interim relief, and that the court was entitled to act suo motu in the interest of justice. He submitted that the grant of maintenance was a protective measure for a woman and that technicalities of notice should not override substantive justice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that Section 403 CrPC permits unilateral action without notice. It held that while the revisional court possesses wide powers, those powers are not unfettered. The Court observed that the grant of interim maintenance directly affects the petitioner’s financial position and legal rights, and such an order cannot be passed without giving the affected party a fair opportunity to be heard.
"Even if the powers under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were required to be exercised by the revisional Court... it was incumbent upon the revisional Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, which admittedly has not been done."
The Court noted the procedural anomaly: the revision was filed on 21.07.2023 and decided on 22.07.2023, leaving no time for notice, reply, or hearing. This, the Court held, was not merely a procedural lapse but a fundamental breach of natural justice. The Court further clarified that the trial court’s order rejecting maintenance had created a legal position in favor of the petitioner, which the revisional court could not override ex parte.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court set aside the order dated 22.07.2023 granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month. The revision preferred by the respondent in Criminal Revision No.14/2023 was restored to its original pendency. The revisional court was directed to hear both parties afresh on 28.04.2026 and decide the revision in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable in Revisional Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must now insist on notice and hearing in all revision petitions seeking interim relief, even under broad statutory powers
- Courts cannot bypass natural justice under the guise of "plenary powers" under Section 403 CrPC
- Any order affecting rights without hearing the affected party is liable to be set aside
Interim Maintenance Requires Balancing of Rights
- The right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be enforced ex parte against a party who has already secured a favorable order
- Courts must weigh the urgency of relief against the right to be heard - urgency does not excuse procedural violation
- Applications for interim maintenance must be decided after notice, opportunity to file counter-affidavits, and oral hearing where necessary
Revisional Courts Are Not Super-Trial Courts
- Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 403 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate
- Courts must not use revision to substitute their own findings without due process
- The doctrine of vested rights applies: once a court has ruled on an issue, that ruling cannot be undone without affording the prevailing party a hearing
