JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This civil revision by the defendant arises out of an order granting conditional stay of the execution proceeding during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 2. Opposite Party is wife of petitioner. She filed a suit for maintenance to enforce her right under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Suit was decreed ex-parte directing payment of Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 100/- per month towards separate residence. When plaintiff did not pay the amount, defendant filed application for execution. 3. Thereafter, defendant filed an application for setting aside the exparts decree and an application was filed to stay further proceeding in the execution case alleging that entire properties of the judgment-debtor have remained under attachment. Refusal to stay is grievance of petitioner. 4. Suit out of which the execution proceeding as well as the application for setting aside the decree has been filed was valued at Rs. 30,000/-, This Civil Revision has been valued at Rs. 1500/- alleging that execution is for Rs. 1500/- only. Without deciding whether the Civil Revision has been properly valued, and accepting that the valuation as indicated in the Civil Revision is correct, I called upon petitioner to explain how the civil revision is maintainable in this Court since learned Counsel for opposite party raised a preliminary objection that in view of Orissa Act, 26 of 1991 substituting Section 115 C.P.C. this civil revision having been filed on 10.1.1992 is not maintainable. 5. Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the nature of suit as envisaged u/s 115 C.P.C. as amended by Orissa Act is a regular suit and matrimonial proceedings are not included therein. 6. There is no specific provision in the legislation for matrimonial proceedings for revising an order. When a Civil Court exercises powers under those legislations, the proceeding before the Civil Court is treated as suit and in that view power u/s 115 C.P.C. is exercised. Where Family Court is to exercise such powers under the Family Courts Act, provisions therein would govern the proceedings. In this case, however, a suit for money was filed though it was on account of matrimonial relationship. Therefore, Section 115 as amended by Orissa Act, 26 of 1991 would be applicable. Suit which is the main basis for the Civil Revision having been valued at Rs. In this case, however, a suit for money was filed though it was on account of matrimonial relationship. Therefore, Section 115 as amended by Orissa Act, 26 of 1991 would be applicable. Suit which is the main basis for the Civil Revision having been valued at Rs. 30,000/-, revision does not lie to the Court. Civil Revision is not entertainable. 7. In result, civil revision is dismissed as not maintainable. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to Mr. R.N. Mohanty to enable the petitioner to filed a Civil Revision in the proper forum as envisaged under Orissa Act, 26 of 1991. Final Result : Dismissed