Is the lower court's order regarding jewelry recovery interlocutory?

The State filed a case under Section 498A and Section 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, I filed an application for the recovery of jewelry. The judge disposed of the application regarding the jewelry articles. I attempted to file a revision under Section 397 of the CrPC, but the court reader informed me that this is an interlocutory order and, therefore, a revision cannot be filed. In my revision petition, I have included the following statement: "This order affects the rights of the woman to recover her own jewelry/Stridhan. Therefore, the aforementioned order should not be considered an interlocutory order, and the present revision is not barred under Section 397(2) of the CrPC. Is the lower court's order considered an intermediate or interlocutory order?