JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.(Oral):- This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri and the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide its order dated 19.05.2007 (Annexure P-1) had rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 02.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable as the order dated 02.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri, falls within the definition of interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable against the said order in the light of the specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that this is an erroneous interpretation put-forth by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and cannot be sustained in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Manjit Kaur and another, 1996(1) R.C.R. Criminal) 155. Counsel relying thereon, further contends that granting or declining of interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision against the same is maintainable. He further contends that since the rights of the parties have been decided, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the said order can said to be interlocutory in nature. This has been authoritatively held by this Court in the above mentioned judgment. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent relies upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Harjit Singh v. Jasjit Kaur, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports, 191, to contend that it is an interlocutory order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments cited at the bar. 6. In the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Manjit Kaur and another, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 155, the judgment of Harjit Singh v. Jasjit Kaur, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports, 191 has been considered and in the light of that I am inclined to follow the judgment in the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Manjit Kaur and another (supra). 7. 6. In the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Manjit Kaur and another, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 155, the judgment of Harjit Singh v. Jasjit Kaur, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports, 191 has been considered and in the light of that I am inclined to follow the judgment in the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Manjit Kaur and another (supra). 7. In my considered view, the order granting/declining interim maintenance is not an interlocutory order so as to fall within the meaning of an interlocutory order, so as not to permit the filing of revision petition under Section 379(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, order dated 19.05.2007 is hereby set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 08.09.2008. Direction is issued to Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to decide the revision petition on merits. ----------------