V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. The objection of the Registry that the Original Petition under Art, 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable is well founded in law. What is challenged is an order passed by the Family Court disposing of two interlocutory applications after the Original Petition was decreed ex-parte. An order could be termed as 'interlocutory in the context of S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 only if it is passed between the two termini. The two termini are the filing of the Original Petition and the passing of the decree and any order passed thereafter is 'final' and not 'interlocutory'. We take cue from Muthuswamy v. Noorudheen 2013 (1) KLT 257 (D.B.)) where an 'interlocutory order' in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was explained. The common order impugned disposes of two interlocutory applications filed to set aside the ex-parte decree and also to condone the delay. The order is very much appeal able under Ss. 19(1) and (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the nomenclature to be assigned is 'Matrimonial Appeal'. We sustain the objection of the Registry and however grant a period of two weeks to the petitioner to cure the defect by