The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'interlocutory order' in the context of S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the impact of this interpretation on the appealability of orders.

K.T. Thomas, J.

1. S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') forbids appeal as well as revision against any interlocutory order. What is the width of the expression "interlocutory order" in the context of that provision? The question needs answer in this appeal filed against an order passed by a Family Court.

2. The question arose in the following backdrop: Appellant is the husband of the first respondent. He filed an application under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. When first respondent claimed maintenance allowance pendente lite, the lower court directed the appellant to pay such maintenance allowance to the first respondent and her children. The case was subsequently transferred to the Family Court. As the appellant failed to pay the maintenance allowance, first respondent resorted to steps for realisation of the amount. One such step was to attach the commission or salary due to the appellant from Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 12-8-94 the Family Court Judge passed the following order: "Attach salary to the extent of Rs. 1,500/- per month". This appeal is filed in challenge of the said order.

3. O.21 R.58 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowered the court which attached any property to adjudicate upon any claim or objections preferred against such attachment. Sub-r.(4) says that where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon, the order made thereon "shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree". In this case appellant has not resorted to the procedure envisaged in R.58 of O.21. Even if he had resorted to it the appealability of the resulting order now stands curtailed by Chap.5 of the Family Court Act.

4. S.19 of the Act is the solitary provision included in Chap.5. Sub-s.(1) provides an appeal against "every judgment or order of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law", but an interlocutory order is excluded from the ambit of the sub-section. Revisional power of the High Court is provided in sub-s.(4). But there is a restriction in the provision that such revisional powers shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order. To make the position further clear sub-s.(5) contains the prohibition to the effect that "except as aforesaid no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court". So an interlocutory order is neither appealable nor revisable in view of S.19 of the Act.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order since the order has a bearing on appellant's right to get his salary. According to the counsel, an order affecting the right of a person has not been treated as an interlocutory order by the courts.

6. In Webster's "New World Dictionary" the word "interlocutory order" has been defined as an order other than final decision. This expression "interlocutory order" has appeared differently in different statutes and received different construction by the courts depending upon the context and setting in which the expression has been used. Under S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, revisional jurisdiction is excluded in relation to an interlocutory order. However the expression "interlocutory order" appearing in the said section has received wider meaning in a number of decisions (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana 1977 (4) SCC 137; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1977 (4) SCC 551 and Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1990 (3) SCC 588)

7. It is advantageous to see how a similar interdict contained in S.11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979 was interpreted. As per it, the appellate jurisdiction is taken away in respect of an interlocutory order. Supreme Court has held in Sukla v. State (AIR 1980 SC 962) while construing the scope of that expression in the said context that if the order does no