Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Instant petition has been filed purported to be under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against an order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Munger in Maintenance Case No.153 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Principle Judge, Family Court has directed the petitioner/ husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as an ad interim maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2/ applicant/ wife as well as children. The learned Principle Judge also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum as cost in filing of the petition as well as Rs.1,000 per date, the recurring cost of litigation.

3. In the background of matrimonial disharmony, Opposite Party No.2/ applicant/ wife while filed maintenance case putting an allegation of harassment, cruelty, which ultimately resulted in kicking her out from her matrimonial home with children and having no source of income has asked for maintenance.

4. Petitioner/ Opposite Party controverted the allegation by way of show-cause and submitted that as the applicant/ opposite party no.2, herself was not inclined to stay at her matrimonial home, hence she is not entitled to claim the same. Furthermore, on account of voluntary relinquishment whereunder, without any rhyme and reason, forbidden the petitioner/ opposite party to discharge his matrimonial obligation, did not justify the prayer. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded that the wife happens to be Homeopathic doctor and from her practice, earns Rs.40,000/- per month. She also earns additional sum of Rs.10,000/- from painting. To justify the same, corresponding activities having at the end of wife that is payment of E.M.I. against loan having borrowed by opposite party no.2/ applicant, payment of premium against insurance policy have also been averred and on the basis thereof, asked for dismissal of the petition.

5. During midst of proceeding, a prayer has been made on behalf of wife for grant of ad interim maintenance to her along with her children, cost of litigation, whereupon objection was filed and after hearing both side, allowed the prayer by the order impugned, subject matter of instant petition.

6. In order to justify the legality of the instant petition, it has been submitted that after having been conclusively held that the order having been passed relating to grant of ad interim maintenance is an interlocutory order, on account thereof, is not at all revisable and that being so, the order is to be subject to adjudication under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. attracting inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, whereupon petition is maintainable.

7. While learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that as per decision of the Division Bench in Md. Akil Ahmad vs. the State of Bihar and another reported in 2016(4) P.L.J.R. 968, it has been held that the order relating to ad interim maintenance is not at all challengeable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. rather it is to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that being so, instant petition is legally not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor endorsed the submission.

8. Maintenance, as provided under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the procedure prescribed there for, adjudicatory power, proper identification of the revisional Court has been, before introduction of Family Courts Act was to be guided in accordance with Criminal Procedure Code. After introduction of Family Courts Act, in order to give speedy remedy to the delinquent, the matter has been entrusted to the Family Court and the proper identification of the powers, procedure, is to be identified so prescribed therein. After going through the Family Courts Act, it is evident that on one stretch, the Court has to exercise its power as a District Judge, while dealing with the issues