, J.

1. The short and significant question for our consideration is whether an order granted interim maintenance in proceedings under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the Code) is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Sec.397 (2) of the Code so as to bar a revision.

2. Only a few facts need to be stated to give the factual background. During the pendency of a petition for maintenance the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, by order dated January 24, 1990 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.300/- per month to respondent No.2 (minor son ). The petitioners revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by order dated April 28, 1990 holding that the order of interim maintenance was not a final order and it was only an interlocutory order and as such revision was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge followed two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Pawan Kumar V/s. Chanchal Kumari, 1987 (2) Recent C. R.454 and Harjit Singh V/s. Jasjit Kaur, 1989 (2) Recent C. R.191. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed th