Judgment :- ABDUL HADI, J. 1. Pursuant to the office note the abovesaid C.R.P. S.R. is posted before us regarding its maintainability. 2. The abovesaid proceedings by the husband is against the order in I.A. No. 732 of 1991, granting interim maintenance under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending the main litigation viz. O.P. 758 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court filed by the respondent-wife for dissolving the marriage between the said parties on the ground of cruelty. 3. This proceeding is sought to be filed under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. No doubt S. 19 of the Family Courts Act has undergone change by virtue of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act 1991 (Central Act No. 59 of 1991) and the said amendment has come into force on 28-12-1991. But the said amendment does not in any way alter the abovesaid sub-S. (1) of S. 19 of the said Act. The said sub-S. (1) while providing that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order of a Family Court to this court says that such an appeal shall not lie if the order in question is an interlocutory order. The abovesaid order passed in I.A. No. 732 of 1991 directing the petitioner husband to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance pendente lite under the abovesaid S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is certainly and interlocutory order and so an appeal under S. 19(1) will not lie against the said order. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a revision would lie against the said order and that too before a Division Bench of this court in view of the abovesaid amendment of the other parts of the abovesaid S. 19, particularly the new sub-S. (4) which was introduced by the above said amendment. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a revision would lie against the said order and that too before a Division Bench of this court in view of the abovesaid amendment of the other parts of the abovesaid S. 19, particularly the new sub-S. (4) which was introduced by the above said amendment. The said sub-S. (4) runs as follows:— “(4) The High Court may of its own motion or otherwise call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order not being an interlocutory order and as to the regularity of such proceedings.” It is clear that the abovesaid new sub-S. (4) only provides for a revision against an order under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (which begins with S. 125 thereof) providing for maintenance to wives and others generally. But the abovesaid order in I.A. No. 732 of 1991 is not an order under the abovesaid Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 in which case the order would also be a final order. As already stated the order in I.A. No. 732 of 1991 is only an interim order pending a litigation with reference to which the abovesaid sub-S. (4) will not apply. There is also no other provision under the Family Courts Act providing for a revision against such interim orders. In fact the old S. 19(4) which is same as the present S. 19(5)after the above said amendment, provides that, except as aforesaid no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of Family Court, So even S. 115 C.P.C. will not apply. Hence a revision will not lie against the order in I.A. No. 732 of 1991 (though before coming into force of the Family Court Act, a revision may lie after the amendment of S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1976). 4. Further the old S. 19(5) which is same as the present S. 19(6) after the abovesaid amendment only provides that an appeal preferred under sub-S. (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more judges. 4. Further the old S. 19(5) which is same as the present S. 19(6) after the abovesaid amendment only provides that an appeal preferred under sub-S. (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more judges. So only when an appeal is filed under S. 19(1) it has to be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more judges and the term “appeal” used in the said sub-Section by no stretch of imagination be taken as including a revision also. 5. The net result is the present C.R.P. S.R. is not maintainable at all under the Family Courts Act. 6. Whether the petitioner can seek relief against the above said order, in this court invoking Article 227 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a question to be explored by the petitioner if he so desires and if that could be done it is also open to him to convert the present C.R.P. S.R. into a proceeding under any of those two articles. 7. The office is directed to return the memorandum of C.R.P. S.R. the petitioner.