The expression 'Interlocutory Order' under Section 397(2) of the code is to be given a restricted meaning. Orders that are purely procedural, necessary for the progress of the case, such as orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, etc., are interlocutory. Finality of the case is not a sine qua non of an order for being taken out of the category of an interlocutory order. The crucial test is that the order substantially affects the rights and liabilities of the parties either with regard to the case as a whole or any aspect thereof. Under the order, the petitioner was saddled with a liability to pay maintenance until it was either finally decided or varied. For default in payment of the amount, coercive process could be used against the petitioner. It is plain that the rights and liabilities of the parties stood determined, though until the decision of the case by the impugned order, and the order could not, therefore, be considered to be interlocutory. It does not stand to reason that the aggrieved party should have no remedy against an order fixing interim maintenance. (Sunil Kumar vs Neelam Subharwal, 1991, Crlj 2056 at 2058)