D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner Naresh Marik has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.6.2004 passed by Sri Amitabh Kumar, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. No 25 of 2001 and 176 of 2003.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on the petition of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the present petitioner and after examination of witnesses on behalf of the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court ordered the present petitioner Naresh Martk to pay maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party No. 2 and further maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party No. 3 per month from the date of passing of that order, payable by 15th day of every month by sending money order on total to the tune of Rs. 1000/- on the address of the opposite parties aforesaid where they used to reside and the cost of money order would also be borne by him. After establishing the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2, the petitioner had refused to maintain her and the minor daughter opposite party No. 3. Against the said order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though a different forum to file revision against the said order is the appropriate forum. The petitioner was directed to file requisites under registered cover with 1/D for notice to the opposite party No. 2. In the meantime, no coercive steps was directed to be taken against the petitioner, subject to condition payment of Rs. 6000/- in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka. The opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed Interlocutory application No. 149 of 2006 with a prayer to vacate the interim order passed by a Bench of this Court on 20.5.2005 and it was further prayed therein that the interlocutory application be treated as counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties.

3. The brief fact of the case, as it indicated from the impugned order is that petitioner had married to opposite party No. 2 in the year 1985 and from their wed-lock a daughter was born in the year 1990. Thereafter petitioner started creating trouble and stopped food and cloth to her. In the year 1997 petitioner ousted the opposite party after torturing and assaulting to which a Panchayati was held, but the dispute could not be resolved. The opposite party No. 2 started living in her maternal uncles house with her daughter, since her father was unable to maintain her and her female child. It was stated that the petitioner had got sufficient means to maintain both of them and, therefore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- was demanded for herself and her daughter.

4. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as legal position, Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is clear about the forum against the order passed by Family Court being not interlocutory order. Section 19 speaks as under:

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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on fats and on law. No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by he 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 subsection 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; and Every appeal under this Section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the dat