ORDER S.S. Jha, J.— This revision is sent on reference to this Bench on the following question of law: “Whether against the order passed by the Family Court in an application under Section 125 of the Code while exercising jurisdiction under Chapter IX of the Code, revision under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act should be registered as Civil Revision or Criminal Revision or Revision Petition (Family) ?” 2. This Bench is required to consider the correctness of the judgment delivered in the case of Aruna Choudhary v. Sudhakar Choudhary1. Question involved is whether revision filed before this Court against the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Family Court shall be registered as Civil Revision or Criminal Revision. In the case of Aruna Choudhary (supra), Division Bench of this Court held that civil revision will lie against the said order. 3. To examine the controversy, it will be useful to refer to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter, referred to as the “Act”). Section 7 of the Act is reproduced-below:— 7. Jurisdiction.— (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall— (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation and (b) be deemed for the purpose of exercising such jurisdiction under such law to be a district court, or as the case may be such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the family court extends. Explanation.—The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-sections” are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:— (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights, or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to as marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody or access to any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise— (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as; may be conferred on it by any other enactment.” 4. From bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, it is apparent that jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate First Class under chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) relates to maintenance of wife, children and parents. Thus under sub-section (2) of section 7, the family Court exercises the jurisdiction of Magistrate First class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as the “Code”). Section 8 relates to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Under clause (b) of Section 8 no Magistrate. shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code. So powers of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Code can be exercised at a place where Family Court is established by the Family Court only and not by other Judicial Magistrate of the district. Section 10 of the Act provides for the procedure. So powers of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Code can be exercised at a place where Family Court is established by the Family Court only and not by other Judicial Magistrate of the district. Section 10 of the Act provides for the procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 provides that subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code or rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code before a Family Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides that an order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. 5. From perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that family Court exercise two types of powers. Cases except the case under Chapter IX of the Code are decided by the Family Court as a District Court.’ The Family Court while dealing with the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the circumstances, when orders have been passed in exercise of the provisions of the Code, revision before this Court under Section 19(4) of the Act cannot be termed as civil Revision Proceeding are arising out of the Code. thus essentially final orders so passed will be revisable under Section 19(4) of the Act as Criminal Revision. 6. It may be mentioned that the Family Court exercises powers of a Judicial Magistrate while dealing with the application for maintenance. If such applications are decided by the Judicial Magistrate, where there is no Family Court, as per High Court Rules, revision against the said order is registered as Criminal Revision. 7. Shri A.M. Naik, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the judgment of Aruna Choudhary (supra) Division Bench of this Court has not considered Sections 7, 8, 10, 18 and 19 of the Act. Therefore, if an order is passed under the Code, no revision will be maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or treated as Civil Revision. Proceedings may be quasi civil or may be civil in nature, they cannot be registered as Civil Revision. He has referred to the judgement in the case of Savitri v. Govind Singh2. Therefore, if an order is passed under the Code, no revision will be maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or treated as Civil Revision. Proceedings may be quasi civil or may be civil in nature, they cannot be registered as Civil Revision. He has referred to the judgement in the case of Savitri v. Govind Singh2. In this case, the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 125 of the Code on the question of grant of interim maintenance pending final disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Code. It is held para 5 as under: “The jurisdiction of a Magistrate under chapter IX of the Code is not strictly a criminal jurisdiction. While passing an order under that chapter asking a person to pay maintenance to his wife, child or parents, as the case may be, the Magistrate is not imposing any punishment on such person for a crime committed by him. Chapter IX of the Code contains a summary remedy for securing some reasonable sum by way of maintenance subject to a decree, if any which may be made in a civil court in a given case provided the personal Law applicable to the person concerned authorises the enforcement of any such right to maintenance. The Code, however, provides a quick remedy to protect the applicant against starvation and to tide over immediate difficulties. Chapter IX of the Code does not in reality create any serious new obligation unknown to Indian social life. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi3, this Court has explained the object of Ss.488 and 489 and 490 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which are replaced by the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code thus. “Sections 488, 489 and 490 constitute one family. They have been grouped together in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of 1898 under caption of the maintenance of wives and children”. This chapter, in the words of Sir James Fitzstephen provides “ a mode of preventing vagrancy, or at least of preventing its consequences.” These provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. This chapter, in the words of Sir James Fitzstephen provides “ a mode of preventing vagrancy, or at least of preventing its consequences.” These provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, they seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggered and destituted on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. Thus, S.488 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties. The jurisdiction conferred by the section on the Magistrate is more in the nature of a preventive rather than a remedial jurisdiction: it is certainly not punitive. As pointed out in Thompson’s case 6 NWP 205 the scope of the Chapter XXXVI is limited and the Magistrate cannot, except as thereunder provided, usurp the jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes possessed by the Civil Courts. Sub-section (2) of S. 489 expressly “makes orders passed under Chapter XXXVI of the Code subject to any final adjudication that may be made by a civil Court between the parties regarding their status and civil rights.” The Apex Court has considered Sections 125 of the Code and Sections 488, 489 and 490 of the Code 1898 and the provisions of section 7(2) (a) of the Act whereby proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code to the family Court. Thus it is clear that the powers of a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under section 125 of the Code have been transferred to the family Courts. Thus any order passed on the application under Section 125 of the Code by the family Courts will be in exercise of power of a Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code. 8. Next question is whether the powers so exercised will be as civil Court or criminal Court. In the case of S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas4, the apex Court considered the term “civil proceeding”. Section 6 of the Code provides for classes of criminal courts which consist of (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrate of the first class and, in any metropolitan area. In the case of S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas4, the apex Court considered the term “civil proceeding”. Section 6 of the Code provides for classes of criminal courts which consist of (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrate of the first class and, in any metropolitan area. Metropolitan Magistrate; (iii) Judicial Magistrate of the second class; and (iv) Executive Magistrates. Thus, powers to hear application under section 125 of the Code are conferred upon the Judicial Magistrate under chapter IX of the Code and orders so passed under chapter IX by the Magistrate are revisable under Section 397 and 401 of the Code. Since the family Court while dealing with the applications for maintenance under section 125 of the code exercises the power of a Judicial Magistrate first class, order will be revisable in terms of sections 397 and 401 of the Code before the High Court. 9. In Aruna Choudhary’s case (supra) Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Balan Nair v. Bhavani Amma Valsalamma and others5 has been considered. In this judgment, the full Bench, has not considered the provisions of the Act and has only held that proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code; stand on different footing. Person against whom claim for maintenance is made is not accused of any offence; nor can he be convicted or sentenced. Proceedings against him are essentially of a civil nature. 10. Chapter IX of the Code provides for its own procedure. Section 125 of the Code pertains to orders for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 126 of the Code provides the procedure of dealing with said application. Code of Civil Procedure provides for proceeding ex parte in civil cases, wherein there is no provisions for proceedings ex parte in criminal case. Code does not provide for review or change in the order once finally passed under Section 362 of the Code. However, unlike Section 362 of the Code, powers to after or modify the maintenances is conferred upon the Court under Section 127 of the code. Under Section 126 of the Code, power is for setting aside ex parte order. Section 128 of relates to enforcement of order of maintenance by the Magistrate. Thus, Chapter IX of the Code itself provides its own procedure for grant of maintenance. 11. Under Section 126 of the Code, power is for setting aside ex parte order. Section 128 of relates to enforcement of order of maintenance by the Magistrate. Thus, Chapter IX of the Code itself provides its own procedure for grant of maintenance. 11. Another Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Satyabhama v. Ramchandra6 has considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Act as also Section 125 of the Code and after analysing the relevant provisions of the Act and the Code held that the Family Court is a Court established with jurisdiction of different nature i.e. to say it has jurisdiction which is exercisable by the District Court and other subordinate Courts to be exercised in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and jurisdiction exercisable by the Magistrate of a Criminal Court as per Section 6 of Chapter IX of the Code. It has been held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 7(2)(a) in accordance with the provisions of the Code, Family Court cannot be deemed or treated as a Civil Court. The jurisdiction conferred under Section 7(2)(a) of the Act being one exercisable by a Magistrate who is a “Criminal Court” as per section 6 of the Code and in accordance with the Code, we find no justification to accept. Contention that while exercising jurisdiction conferred under Section 7(2)(a), the Family Court acts as a criminal court and not as a “civil court.” 12. Learned Division Bench in the case of Aruna Choudhary (supra) has simply held mat subsequent Full Bench has not considered the view taken by the earlier Full Bench, it may be mentioned that earlier Full Bench while considering the case on different aspect has not considered the case in the light of the Family Courts Act. whereas Subsequent Full Bench of, Kerala High Court has considered the scope of Sections of the Act vis-a-vis Code. Reasonings by the later Full Bench are just and proper. Earlier Full Bench has not considered the scope of Section 7 of the Act, therefore, the ratio laid down by the subsequent Full Bench in the case of Satyabhama (supra) in our opinion is correct and proper. 13. In the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shashida7, the Apex Court has considered the object of enactment of the Act. Earlier Full Bench has not considered the scope of Section 7 of the Act, therefore, the ratio laid down by the subsequent Full Bench in the case of Satyabhama (supra) in our opinion is correct and proper. 13. In the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shashida7, the Apex Court has considered the object of enactment of the Act. It is held in para 10 as under: “The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. From a perusal of the Statement of objects and reasons, it appears that the said Act, inter alia, seeks to exclusively provide within the jurisdiction of the Family Courts matters relating to the property of the spouses or either of them. Section 7 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of suits and proceedings as referred to in the Explanation appended thereto. Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 refers to a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them. 14. In the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Limited v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.8, procedure to be followed in the matter of special Act has been laid down. It is held that the procedure existing in the High Court should be followed. It is submitted, by the parties that since the proceedings are under Section 125 of the Code, therefore as per High Court Rules, it should be heard as Criminal Revision. Reference was made to Clause 15 and Clause 16 of the Letters Patent of 1861 which includes a provision "or shall become subject to appeal to the said High Court by virtue of such laws and regulations relating to Civil Procedure as shall be hereafter made by the Governor General in Council. In this case, question of proceeding under the Trade Marks Act was for consideration. Full Bench in para 6 has held that the Act does not provide or lay down any procedure for future conduct or career of that appeal in the High Court though section 77 of the Act provides that the High Court can if it likes make rules in the matter. Full Bench in para 6 has held that the Act does not provide or lay down any procedure for future conduct or career of that appeal in the High Court though section 77 of the Act provides that the High Court can if it likes make rules in the matter. Obviously after the appeal had reached the High Court it has to be determined according to the rules of practice and procedure of that Court and in accordance with the provisions of the charter under which that Court is constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that jurisdiction. In this case question of procedure was considered and it was held that the procedure should be followed as per the Rules framed by the High Court. 15. In the case of Emperor v. Bhatu Sadu Mali9, Full Bench of Bombay High Court while considering the scope of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has held that applications in revision from an order under Section 476-B of the Code by a civil Court to the High Court should be heard and decided by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 439 criminal P.C. and not under S.115 Civil P.C. When the order is passed under section 476-B of the Code by the civil Court, it is held that revision shall be decided under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. In the case of Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and another10, Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court while considering the scope of Section 7 of the Act has held that the High Court has jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of cases. Family Court is the Court and it exercises State’s judicial power in judicial manner. In para 4 of the judgment, Section 10 of the Act has been referred. Family Court has all the attributes and satisfies all the ingredients of a Court. It has been declared by Section 7 of the Act to be a district Court or subordinate civil Court to which provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure have been applied by Section 10 of the Act. Family Court has all the attributes and satisfies all the ingredients of a Court. It has been declared by Section 7 of the Act to be a district Court or subordinate civil Court to which provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure have been applied by Section 10 of the Act. It is further held that the High Court has power under Sections 22 to 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer cases relating to matters dealt with by explanation of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Likewise, it has powers under Section 407 of the Code to transfer a case relating to Chapter IX of the Code. 17. Therefore, we answer the reference that since powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class have been exercised by the Family Court for deciding application under section 125 of the Code revision filed against the said order should be registered as Criminal Revision. Therefore, with respect to the judgment in the case of Aruna Choudhary (Supra) we hold that correct law has not been laid down in this judgment. Revisions arising out of applications under Section 125 of the Code shall be registered as criminal revisions as they flow from the proceedings under the Code. However, it is for the High Court to frame rules for hearing of appeals and revision-arising out of the orders passed by the Family Court and its registration. The High Court may consider this matter on administrative side. 18. Reference is answered accordingly. The revision be registered as criminal revision and be listed before the Bench according to roster. Reference is answered accordingly. 1. 2004 (2) MPLJ 101. 2. AIR 1986 SC 984 . 3. (1975) 2 SCR 483 at 486 : (AIR 1975 SC at p. 85). 4. AIR 1965 SC 1818 . 5. AIR 1987 Kerala 11. 6. 1998 (I) Crimes 143. 7. (2003) 4 SCC 166 . 8. AIR 1953 SC 357 . 9. AIR 1938 Bombay 225. 10. AIR 1991 Allahabad 189.