Amreshwar Sahay, J.

1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner, against his wife and daughter, challenging the Judgment dated 28.01.2004, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1000/-per month to his wife, and Rs. 500/- per month to his daughter, by way of interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC initiated at the instance of the wife and daughter of the petitioner, who are opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in this application.

2. The petition under Section 125, Cr PC was filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka for a direction to pay maintenance to them, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 69 of 2003. During the pendency of the said petition, one another application was filed by the said opposite parties for a direction to the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 2000/- per month respectively to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by way of interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC.

3. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 is the daughter, who were presently living at the place of the father of opposite party No. 1 at Dumka. It appears that both the parties are fighting several cases against each other, which are going on.

4. According to the claimant wife (opposite party No. 1), she could live at her matrimonial home only for few days, as during her stay there, she was tortured and ill treated by her husband and his family members. It was further alleged by the opposite party No. 1 that during her stay at her marital house, she found that her husband was keeping a Santhal woman and was having illicit relationship with her. It was further stated that after bearing filthy languages and ill treatment at the hands of her husband, opposite party No. 1 fell ill and then she was taken to her parents place at Dumka by her husband (petitioner) in ailing condition. Thereafter, on his constant visit to Dunmka, she conceived and gave birth to a female child i.e., opposite party No. 2.

The opposite parties have no independent source of income, are living at Dumka at the residence of father of opposite party No. 1 after being deserted and neglected by the petitioner, who had his income not less than 15.000-20.000/- per month.

5. The prayer of the opposite parties for grant of maintenance as well as interim maintenance was objected to by the revision petitioner on various grounds. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, by impugned order, awarded the interim maintenance in favour of the wife and daughter (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) of the petitioner, which has been challenged in this revision application.

6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties raised objection regarding maintainability of the present revision application on the ground that against the order awarding interim maintenance, a revision would not be maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the impugned order is interlocutory in nature.

7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the present revision application arises against the order awarding interim maintenance, but the revision is maintainable as order impugned is in the nature of final order where the right of the parties have been decided and, therefore, the bar under Section 397(2) would not apply in the present case.

8. The meaning of "Interlocutory Order" has elaborately been dealt with and interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shaukla v. State through CBI , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows :

"The word interlocutory order used in Section 397(2) of the Code relates to various stages of the trial, namely, appeal, Inquiry, trial or any other proceeding. The object seems to be to cut down the delays in stages throug