An order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.

A.P.CHOWDHRI, J.

1. The short and significant question for our consideration is whether an order granted interim maintenance in proceedings u/S. 125 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred as the Codes) is an interlocutory order within the meaning of S. 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 24/01/1990 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month to respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 300.00 per month to respondent No. 2 (minor son). The petitioners revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by order dated 28/04/1990 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 CR 454 and Harjit Singh V/s. Jasjit Kaur, (1989) 2 Recent C. R. 191. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court u/S.482 of the Code for quashing the orders passed by both the Courts below. The petition was heard by our learned brother J. S. Sekhon J. He noticed a conflict of view in the two decisions cited above as also another single Bench decision of this Court in Sumer Chand V/s. Sandhuran Rani (1988) 94 Pun LR 12. Considering the importance of the question he admitted the petition to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has been heard by us.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has burdened the petitioner with considerable financial liability If the petitioner failed to comply with it, he could be arrested and sent to jail. The order would ordinarily remain in force till final decision of the main petition which may take quite some time. It was submitted that if revision is held barred, the only remedy left with the aggrieved person was to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u / S.482 of the Code with all the difficulties involved in such a course of action.

4. The contention of Shri H. S.Gill, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the order in question is only an interim order and it is liable to be varied in the light of evidence to be led by the parties. Counsel submitted that in the absence of finality attached to the order the same was only an interlocutory order and the legislative policy contained in S.397(2) of the Code barred a revision against an interlocutory order. According to him, therefore, the impugned order was unexceptionable and there was no case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/S. 482 of the Code.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The expression interlocutory order has not been defined in the Code. The said expression was, however, interpreted by the Supreme Court in Amar Nath V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 for the time in these words:

" Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be applicable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term interlocutory order in S.397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this pa