An order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not an interlocutory order and is subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code.

1. The petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 410 of 1987 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2500-M of 1987 and both these petitions are being disposed of in this order.

2. Sandhuran Rani, wife of Sumer Chand and Anju Bala, his daughter, the present respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance allowance against Sumer Chand, the present petitioner. During the pendency of that petition, an application was made on behalf of the respondents for interim maintenance and after the whole matter was gone into by the trial Court, Sandhuran Rani, respondent was held to be not entitled to any interim maintenance and so far as her application was concerned, it was declined. The trial Court, however, allowed interim maintenance to Anju Bala, respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month, Sandhuran Rani, respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge. The present petitioner also went in revision against the order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 and both those revision petitions were heard finally by the Additional Sessions Judge.

3. Both the aforesaid revision petitions were decided by a single order dated 31st January, 1987. The revision petition filed by the present petitioner Sumer Chand was dismissed and in the revision petition filed by Sandhuran Rani, respondent No. 1, the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case back to the trial Court after holding that Sandhuran Rani, respondent No. 1 was also entitled to interim maintenance and the trial Court was also directed to re-consider the quantum of interim maintenance granted to Anju Bala and also adjust equities between the parties while ordering interim maintenance to Sandhuran Rani.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the trial Court granting interim maintenance was an interlocutory order and, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) (for short the Code), powers of revision are not to be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings and, therefore, the revision filed by respondent No. 1 before the Sessions Court was not competent. He has relied upon a judgment reported in Moolji Jaitha and Co. V/s. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1950 FC 83 which was a case under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the issuance of certificate by the High Court and it lays down that order of the High Court was not final order and no appeal lays before the Federal Court under the provisions of that Code. He has laid stress that the revision could lie only against a final order and this order granting interim maintenance being an interlocutory order, no revision was competent.

5. After considering the whole matter, I am of the view that the argument has no force. Under the Code there is no provision for filing an application for granting interim maintenance during the pendency of main application under S.125 of the Code after the Supreme Court judgment holding the right of the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code to get interim maintenance. Almost in all cases applications for interim relief are being made. This application for interim maintenance is by itself separate matter and it has to be disposed of separately much earlier than the final order in the main case. By an order of interim maintenance, the rights of the parties are affected and decided finally in respect of that subject matter and by no stretch of imagination such an order can be called an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye V/s. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165), it was laid down as under : -

"Ordinarily and generally, the expression interlocutory order has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term final order. In