JUDGMENT Vijay Lakshmi, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. Perused the records. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 939 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the court below while partly allowing the application moved by the wife praying for interim maintenance has directed the revisionist/husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to his minor daughter (opposite party no. 3). 3. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the court below has not considered the objection filed by the revisionist during the proceedings in the lower court. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the court below has recorded a clear finding that the opposite party/husband has appeared in the case on 6.1.2015 but despite having ample time and opportunity, he has not filed any objection against the application. The order impugned also shows that on the date of order, the husband was present in the court and he had moved an application for sending the matter to mediation centre. Hence it cannot be said that the revisionist was not given any opportunity of hearing and as such there appears no force in the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist. Moreover the impugned order is clearly an interlocutory order passed at an interim stage of the case whereby some amount has been awarded to the destitute wife and minor child to enable them to survive and contest their case during its pendency. 5. What is an interlocutory order is defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments as under : - "The safe test to decide if the impugned order is an interlocutory or not has been laid down by the Apex Court through a series of decisions, and that is whether the criminal proceedings challenged in revision would culminate has a whole if the revision is allowed. If yes, then the order is not interlocutory although if crosspassed at any interlocutory stage of the proceeding." (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.; AIR 2001 SC 3625 ) 6. If yes, then the order is not interlocutory although if crosspassed at any interlocutory stage of the proceeding." (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.; AIR 2001 SC 3625 ) 6. So far as the order impugned in the present revision is concerned, in view of the aforesaid definition of interlocutory order, it cannot be said that even if the revision is allowed the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would culminate as a whole. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant revision which has been preferred against an interlocutory order is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. ………………