1. Heard Ms. M. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent when the matter is called upon.

2. The present revision petition is preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 read with Section 482/401 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the learned Family Court, Kamrup in Case No. F.C.(Crl) 318/2007. The Case No. F.C(Crl) 318/2007 was preferred by the present respondent being the wife against the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. During the pendency of the proceeding under Section 125, the claimant wife filed a petition No.527/2010 with a prayer for an interim maintenance, on the ground that she was without any income and was required to live at the mercy of her father who also did not have sufficient income at that relevant point of time.

3. By the order dated 27.04.2010, the said petition of the respondent for an interim maintenance was given a consideration. The petitioner took the stand that his income was limited to Rs.1000/-per month from tuition and his other sources of income had in the meantime stopped. A stand was also taken by the petitioner husband that the respondent wife had some other source of income.

4. But in spite of such stand being taken, the learned Family Court, Guwahati by the order dated 27.04.2010 had granted an interim maintenance in favour of the respondent wife at an amount of Rs.1200/-per month. The interim maintenance is assailed in this revision petition and one of the grounds taken by the petitioner husband is that he is a daily wage earner. But such stand taken in the revision also appears to be contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner husband in the proceeding before the Family Court that he earns Rs.1,000/-per-month from tuition.

5. Be that as it may, without expressing any view on the merit of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner husband, we take note of that this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner husband, amongst others, also under Section 94 of the Family Court Act, 1984.

Section 19 of the Family Court Act is as follows:-

“19. Appeal-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, nor being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

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 Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 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 an 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.”

6. Section 19(1) provides for an appeal against every judgment or order of a Family Court, not being an interlocutory order and such provision for appeal is notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Proce