( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Application seeks to challenge the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application no. 159/2002, whereby the order to pay interim maintenance to the respondent no. 1 and 2 was revised to Rs. 5000. 00 and Rs. 1500. 00 from Rs. 500. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 respectively.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the original application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed with the contentions that the petitioner was a Professor employed at a salary of Rs. 21,000. 00, besides having the income from singing of songs and giving stage programmes. The original applicants, being wife aged 38 and minor son aged 12, have claimed total Rs. 12,000. 00 per month by way of maintenance and also prayed to decide the amount of interim maintenance, since the hearing and disposal of the main application might take longer time. The applicants had substantiated their contentions by executing an affidavit dated 12-9-2002 below the application and, after considering that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, had, by order dated 10-12-2002, ordered the payment of total Rs. 900. 00 by way of interim maintenance.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the said dependents of the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge by way of a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code") and, having regard to the facts and circumstances, more particularly the net income of the petitioner, the requirements of the estranged wife and the educational needs of the minor child who was soon to face the examination of higher standard, the learned Sessions Judge has modified the amount of interim maintenance so as to order the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5000. 00 per month to the wife and a sum of Rs. 1500. 00 to the son. It is that order which is under challenge in this Revision Application.

( 4 ) AFTER issuance of notice and reducing the amount of interim maintenance by way of ex parte ad interim relief, the matter has been listed from time to time and the parties appear to have entertained the hope of negotiations and reconciliation. Those efforts having failed, the application was argued for admission by the learned Counsel Mr. Gondalia mainly on the ground that the impugned order made in revision was bad in law since the Revision Application against the interim order was not maintainable under the express provisions of the Code. He pointed out the express provisions of Section (2) of Section 397 to submit that the powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) of Section 397 cannot be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, trial or other proceeding. He also submitted that the petitioner proposed to lead, as early as possible, the evidence regarding his own personal requirements, income and the expenditure required to be incurred on other dependents, one of whom was his handicapped brother. The judgment of this Court in STATE OF GUJARAT vs. GAURANG MATHURBHAI and ORS. (1999 (3) G. L. R 2325 was relied upon for the proposition of law as under:" The expression "interlocutory order" is not defined in Criminal Procedure Code. In order to Judge whether the particular order is interlocutory or otherwise, the Court has to, making every endeavour, find out whether the order in question is interlocutory order. If it is found that the order passed is purely interim or temporary in nature which does not decide or touch the important rights and liabilities of the parties and give a final shape to a particular point at a particular stage during the course of the hearing the same can be termed interlocutory order. If the order substantially affects the rights and liabilities of the parties it would not be an interlocutory order. It may also be stated that intermediate or quasi-final order which determines a particular issue finally at any stage of the hearing will not f