JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that impugned order dated 1.3.1996 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar and the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi be quashed. 2. The respondent Raeesa Bano moved an application Under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code on 30.1.1988 for maintenance allowance to other and for her son. Notice was issued to petitioner. In response to notice the petitioner has stated that divorce has taken place, therefore, no maintenance allowance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code can be allowed. One more application was moved by the petitioner that after commencement of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance allowance. The facts of divorce has been denied by the respondent. The relevant documents were produced in Court and both the sides produced witnesses in support of their case. 3. The matter was heard and after taking into account the material on record and statement of witnesses the trial Court came to the conclusion that though `talaknama' was prepared on 10.7.1985 but the 'talaknama' came into knowledge of respondent only on 27.7.1988. Therefore, till 27.7.1988 the respondent is entitled for maintenance allowance Under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. After 27.7.1988 the maintenance will considered in the light of provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 4. Against the order dated 31.8.1994, the petitioner filed revision petition. The Revisional Court Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar vide order 1.3.1996 rejected the revision petition on the ground that order of trial Court dated 31.8.1994 is interlocutory order. 5. Mr. Naqvi learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional Court has not understand the meaning of inter-locutory order. In fact, the issue regarding divorce and maintenance allowance Under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has been finally decided by the trial Court, therefore, it cannot be said an inter locutory order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders of Courts below. From the order dated 31.8.1994 of trial Court it is clear that trial Court has decided the issue that the divorce between petitioner and respondent Raeesa Bano has taken place and it became effective from 27.7.1988. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders of Courts below. From the order dated 31.8.1994 of trial Court it is clear that trial Court has decided the issue that the divorce between petitioner and respondent Raeesa Bano has taken place and it became effective from 27.7.1988. The respondent Raeesa Bano will be entitled for maintenance allowance Under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. till 26.7.1988. The maintenance allowance after 27.7.1988 will be considered under the provisions of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 7. It is surprised that presiding officer of Court in revision has Doctorate in law and he does not know the meaning of inter locutory order. In the case in hand the trial Court has decided the issue regarding divorce between petitioner and Raeesa Bano and maintenance allowance Under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. No further decision of trial Court is required so far the maintenance Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. is concerned. This shows the poor knowledge of Mr. Padam Kumar Jain, Presiding Officer of Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar. He needs improvement. Mr. Padam Kumar Jain should be posted on non-judicial post atleast for next five years. 8. In view of the above discussion the order dated 1.3.1996 is set aside and the matter is restored back to Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar to decide the revision petition on merits. The petition is allowed as indicated above. Petition Allowed. *******