ORDER :

1. Petitioner has preferred these separate revision petitions aggrieved by Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the Court under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, (hereinafter referred as the “Act, 2005”) has awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of filing of application till the disposal of the main case and against the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the Appellate Court has increased the interim maintenance amount from Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that revision petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2017 ALL 29”, where the question referred to the Larger Bench was whether a revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable before the High Court challenging the order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act 2005. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court answered the reference in affirmative.

4. Reliance has also been placed on “Kavita Vyas vs. Deepak Dave AIR 2018 Raj 72”, whereby Larger Bench of this Court held that appeal lies before the High Court under Section 24 read with Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 against an order passed by a Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a conductor on magic vehicle and is earning a meagre amount, hence not in a position to pay the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below. It is also contended that the order passed by the Court below while allowing the application under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence is a final order and thus a revision is maintainable. It is contended that petitioner is ready and willing to keep the respondent with her but she is pressing upon the petitioner to give her divorce, as she wants to marry someone else.

6. It is also contended that the trial court has awarded interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application without assigning any reason for awarding maintenance from the date of filing of application. Court has also not considered the fact that respondent is earning Rs.100/- to Rs.125/- per day. It is also contended that there was no justification for the appellate court to increase the maintenance amount from Rs.2500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month.

7. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that this Court in “Anshul Kulshreshtha vs. Smt. Swarnima Kulshreshtha & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Peittion No.483/2018)” decided on 31.08.2018 has held that a revision is not maintainable against grant of interim maintenance there being a bar of Sub-Section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C..

8. I have considered the contentions.

9. This Court relying on the Judgments of Rajasthan High Court in “K. Ramnarayan & Ors. vs. Pukhraj & Ors. 2018 (3) RLW 2334 (Raj.)” has held that grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and a revision petition is not maintainable, as it does not decide the right and liabilities of the parties.

10. Larger Bench of High Court of Allahabad in “Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra)” was dealing with the provisions of Section 29 of the “Act, 2005” and provisions pertaining to revision under the Cr.P.C.. It answered the reference in affirmative and held that revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable. That was also a case where interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- was awarded in favour of the respon