“… We hold the view that maintenance and custody are interlocutory matters see Rayden on Divorce, 10th Ed. at page 791 note (a). Orders for alimony, maintenance etc. or for custody are deemed to be interlocutory orders for the purpose of appeal. At page 785 paragraph 13 of Rayden (supra) it is said: “Any order made in chambers is interlocutory for the purpose of an appeal, and an order for custody is interlocutory, even though made in open court. See directions made in 14th October, 1952.” The case Chinchen v. Chinchen (1950) W.N. 22 C.A. is a case in point. This was followed by the case In RE: W. (an infant) (1953) 2 All E.R. 1337 and also Re. W. (Infants) (1956) Ch. 384; (1956)1 All E.R. 368 C.A., where it was held that “if it is desired to appeal from an interlocutory order made in open court, leave must generally be obtained from the judge or from the Court of Appeal, except under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 section 31(1)(i) liberty of the subject or custody of an infant.” This court of course is not bound by the above provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925. The reason why order for maintenance and custody is treated as interlocutory is the want of finality because it is subject to revision by the court which made the order. Such orders, though on the face they appear final, are subject to subsequent revision, suspension or modification by the court which pronounces them. (See Spencer Bower and Turner Res judicata 2nd Ed. at pp. 138, 172 and 173).”

Per ADEMOLA, JSC in Adesanoye v. Adesanoye (1971) LCER-602(SC) (Pp 5 – 6, Paras E – E)