JUDGMENT Sarkar-II, J.: This appeal relates to the custody of a minor child who is aged about 7 years. 2. It is an unfortunate story of a broken house, where the husband and the wife fell apart leaving the minor into a void. We have also interviewed the minor child in the chamber in absence of either of the parties. The minor is only of tender age. Naturally, in such a situation where the parents have been acrimoniously fighting each other, the child appears to be a little confused. We have given our mature consideration to the case of the minor child. We could know through interview that even in such plight, the minor child has affection towards both her father and mother, but with a difference of degree. She appears to be tilted towards her mother. But it does not absolutely appear to us that she is averse to her father. Under such unfortunate circumstances, the worst sufferer is the child. At this stage the child requires the company and touch of personality and affection of the parents in order to shape her future career. The privation is likely to affect the mental make up of the minor child. The child has been given to the absolute custody of the mother t but the father can have the right to get the company of the child, if not regularly but from time to time. The children of the present age cannot be brought up in the incubator. They must be given a free play to observe social follow-up and to from their own judgment regarding the relationship between the good and the bad. In our considered opinion, the paramount interest of the child will be ensured more at least at this stage if she is allowed to enjoy the warmth of company of her father for a day and a half in every week. 3. In 1995 the wife filed a Matrimonial suit against the husband and that suit was numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 18 of 1995. In that suit on consent of both the parties the learned Judge passed an order regarding the custody of the minor child. 3. In 1995 the wife filed a Matrimonial suit against the husband and that suit was numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 18 of 1995. In that suit on consent of both the parties the learned Judge passed an order regarding the custody of the minor child. From the xerox certified copy of that order filed by the appellant-petitioner In Court, it appears that the Court below directed that the minor child shall normally remain in the custody of the wife-mother but the petitioner father will be given the custody of the minor daughter from the evening i.e. 4-30 P.M. on every Friday and the petitioner-father will return the child on each Sunday morning at 9-30 A.M. to the wife-opposite party. This order was in force, but the suit was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution and along with the suit, the order regarding the custody of the minor child also lost its force. 4. After sometime the parties again approached the Court for dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The appellant-petitioner filed a petition praying for custody of the child under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act and the learned District Judge without giving any chance of elaborate bearing disposed of the matter in favour of the wife-respondent and that the custody of the child was absolutely given to the wife. 5. On being aggrieved by such order the bus band• appellant has come with this Appeal before this Court. Along with this Appeal, the learned Advocate for the appellant being in confusion has filed also an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the prayer in the alternative to treat such petition as an application related to the matrimonial matter. 6. A preliminary question that has been agitated before us is that whether against the impugned order of custody of the child the appeal lies or a revision should lies or the petition be treated as an application filed relating to the matrimonial matter. 7. Therefore, three matters are before us. Firstly, the first Miscellaneous Appeal being F.M.A., secondly, the application under Section 115 C.P.C. and thirdly, in the alternative, an application related to the matrimonial matter. 8. 7. Therefore, three matters are before us. Firstly, the first Miscellaneous Appeal being F.M.A., secondly, the application under Section 115 C.P.C. and thirdly, in the alternative, an application related to the matrimonial matter. 8. At the outset it is to be noted that this Division Bench has the jurisdiction to entertain the first Miscellaneous Appeal and also an application related to the matrimonial matter; but no jurisdiction to entertain the revisional application under Section 1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. After a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and upon going through the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are definite that the revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable before this Court or in effect the purpose would not be served by treating such application as an application related to matrimonial matter. 10 Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act provides that a final order regarding maintenance, custody and education of the minor will be appealable, but no. appeal shall lie against an Interim order. 11. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the question of deciding the correct jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the Court; but so far as his submission goes, the impugned order should be dealt with under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Because, it was not a final order contained in a decree as contemplated under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, but an order which will be left for the Court to decide tm the disposal of the pending suit for dissolution of marriage. 12. Regarding the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant, we would like to point out that the question of custody of the minor child can never be finally decided due to change in circumstances e.g. the death of the guardian or re-marriage or due to insanity of such guardian etc. It may be necessary at any stage to alter or modify the order regarding the custody, maintenance and education of the minor child and it can be done even after passing the decree. This fact can clearly be deduced from the language used in Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act. It may be necessary at any stage to alter or modify the order regarding the custody, maintenance and education of the minor child and it can be done even after passing the decree. This fact can clearly be deduced from the language used in Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act. Section 38 itself mentions that the aggrieved party may file an application for variation or modification of the order even after passing of the decree before the self-same. Court. Therefore, one must consider this aspect in such matter. The test of finality of an order has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) The Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand reported in AIR 1967 SC 799 . It was a decision in connection with Delhi Rent Control Act. But the principle has been laid down that an order which affects the right or liability of a party should be appealable. But no Appeal should lie from an interlocutory order which is merely procedural or, in other words, does not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. 13. In the instant case, the right to have the custody of the minor child has been decided by the Trial Court (vide the impugned order). In other words, the question of right to get the custody of the minor child of either of the parties has been decided. Therefore; it is not an interlocutory order, rather up to that stage the order is final in itself. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified here by to the extent that the child-Sohinee alias Linnet alias Mamoni Chowdhury shall ordinarily remain in the custody of the mother, but the mother is directed to hand over the child to her husband i.e. the father of the child, who is the petitioner-appellant, on each Friday in the afternoon at 4-30 P. M. who is directed to keep the child in his custody for the rest of Friday and the whole of the following Saturday and to hand over the child to the mother i.e. the opposite party-respondent, on each Sunday morning at or before 9-30 A.M. positively till the disposal of the pending suit. 15. 15. Accordingly, we hold that in terms of the provision of Section 39(2) of the Special Marriage Act, this impugned order too is appealable and when the Appeal lies no revision will come into play against the impugned order. 16. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the pending suit as early as possible in order to bring an end to this uncertainty that clouds the future of the minor child. 17. This order and the observation made thereunder are passed and made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to the Original Suit and no part of the above order will in any way be reflected in the mind of the Court below at the time of final disposal of the suit. 18. In the result, the revisional application being not maintainable, the same is hereby rejected. The Appeal is allowed on contest. 19. The impugned order is modified in the following terms :- That the respondent-mother is directed to hand over the child to the husband-appellant i.e. the father of the child on each Friday in the afternoon at 4.30 P.M. and the husband appellant is directed to keep the child in his custody for the rest of Friday and the whole of the following Saturday and to hand over again the child to the mother-respondent on each Sunday morning at or before 9-30 A.M. positively till the disposal of the pending suit. There will be no order as to costs. Preparation of formal decree is dispensed with. Kundu, J.: I agree.