IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.553 of 2007 RAJIV ROSHAN son of Sri Nand Kishore Lal, resident of Lal Kothi, Tripolia Ghat, P.S. Alamganj, District… …Petitioner Versus SARIKA daughter of Sri Ishwar Chand Prasad, wife of Sri Rajiv Roshan, resident of Talab per, near Bus Stand, Nasriganj, District Sasaram… Respondent-Respondent For the Petitioner: M/s Jashwir Singh Arora and Ajay Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 5 21.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 242 of 2004, whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-(rupees seven thousand) per month and in addition Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) by way of lump sum towards the expenses of the proceedings have been awarded in the aforesaid matrimonial case to the opposite party. The question arises in this case is as to whether the forum of civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court would be available for challenging the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jagdish Pd. Chouhan v. Bhuneshwar Chouhan and anr., reported in 2009(4) BBCJ, 442 the civil revision may not 2 be maintainable, however, it is further submitted that even if there is bar under section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) for filing any revision against any judgment, order or decree other than which has been described in section 19 of the Act itself, there should not be a bar on challenge being made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or any other remedy available to the petitioner under law. This goes without saying that if any remedy is available to the petitioner under law, no liberty is necessary to be granted for availing the same. In the above view of the matter, respectfully relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Jagdish Pd. Chouhan (supra), I hold that this civil revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the respective cases of the parties. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)