(1) The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order passed by Judge, Family Court at Calcutta in connection with Misc. Case No. 24 of 1999 whereby and whereunder learned Court below allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/-per month payable by the petitioner herein to the Opposite Party.

(2) It appears from the order under challenge that initially he learned Court below while disposing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed grant of maintenance in favour of the minor daughter of the petitioner herein but the prayer for maintenance of the Opposite Party herein was refused.

(3) The Opposite Party herein questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in connection with C.R.R. No. 539 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, so far as it relates to the refusal to grant maintenance to Opposite Party and directed the learned Judge, Family Court to re-hear the matter after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

(4) The impugned order under challenge is the out come of the direction passed by the learned Judge of this Court in connection with C.R.R. No. 539 of 2001.

(5) Before discussing the merit of the application, I like to point out that under subsection (2) to Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act), it is provided that no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(6) The application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure falls under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure and normally the order passed by Judge of the Family Court shall not be appealable in view of clear language of sub-section (2) to Section 19 of the Act. However, an exception to the general rule is made under subsection (4) of the Section 19 of the Act, and the same is set out below: "19. (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."

(7) Sub-section (5) of Section 19 further stipulates that no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgement, order or decree of a Family Court.

(8) It is evident that save and except the.cases falling under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act, the final order passed by a Family Court reaches finality and the same cannot be challenged before any Court in view of the clear language as appearing under sub-section (2) and sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act.

(9) The scope of judicial review of the order passed by the Family Court by the High Court is limited to the extent that only correctness, legality or propriety of the order which is not an interlocutory order as to the regularity of such proceeding can only be challenged before this Court in terms of language appearing under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act.

(10) Keeping the legal proposition in mind, the matter is required to be examined.

(11) In the application, petitioner herein is mainly aggrieved by the decision of the learned Court below about the quantum of maintenance. According to the petitioner herein the Opposite Party, who is the wife of petitioner has sufficient means, which in indicated from her Bank statement as well as from the purchase of shares in different organisations.

(12) The income of the Opposite Party as sought to be highlighted by the petitioner herein was