JUDGMENT Hon'ble JAIN, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 201/2003, whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by present petitioners was partly allowed. The application of petitioner no.1 Smt. Champa wife of Rooplal was dismissed. Application filed by petitioners no. 1 and 2 namely Kumari Minal and Master Jatin was allowed and respondent Rooplal was directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/-per month to Kumari Minal and Rs. 750/- per month to Master Jatin, towards maintenance, from the date of interim application i.e. 14th January, 2005. 2. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of Family Court, the petitioners had preferred this revision petition before this Court as D.B. Criminal Appeal under Section 19(6) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1984'), but it appears that a correction was made and it was subsequently described as S.B. Criminal Revision under Section 19(6) of the Family Court Act, 1984. 3. The matter was listed before the learned Single Judge on 15th July, 2013, arguments were heard finally and order was reserved. Learned Single Judge vide its order dated 17th July, 2013, directed that this S.B. Criminal Revision Petition be treated as D.B. Petition for Family Courts and Matrimonial matters and be listed before Division Bench. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17th July, 2013 is reproduced as under:- “In this matter, all the three petitioners are being represented by their Advocate Mr. Sajjan Singh and non-petitioner Rooplal is being represented by his Advocate Dr. Javed Moyal. Both the parties have submitted their documents and by perusal of those documents, it appears that Family Court, Jodhpur on 3.6.2009 had passed two orders, one in Civil Original Case No.58/1999-Smt. Champa Devi vs. Roop Lal under Section 18 and 20 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and one under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Original Case No.201/2003-Smt. Champa Devi vs. Roop Lal. Against the order passed in the Civil Original Case No.58/1999, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 926/2009 was filed by Smt. Champa Devi etc. and that appeal was decided on 1.9.2011 by Hon'ble the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Copy of this order has been submitted by the parties before me which is kept on record. Against the order passed in the Civil Original Case No.58/1999, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 926/2009 was filed by Smt. Champa Devi etc. and that appeal was decided on 1.9.2011 by Hon'ble the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Copy of this order has been submitted by the parties before me which is kept on record. Present S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.177/2010 has been filed by Smt. Champa Devi against the order dated 3.6.2009 in Criminal Original Case No. 201/2003. Both the parties agree with my view that because of Section 19(6) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, orders passed by the Family Court can be challenged only by way of an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and such appeal has to be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges. Looking to the provisions of Section 19(6) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioners have prayed that their S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 177/2010 be treated as D.B. Petition for Family Courts and Matrimonial Matters. The prayer is allowed and accordingly, the Registry is directed to remove this file from the Register of S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions and to register it as a fresh D.B. Petition for Family Courts and Matrimonial Matters and this file be put up after one week before the concerned Division Bench.” 4. In view of above order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Registry has placed this matter before this Court. 5. The Family Court Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) was enacted by Parliament and it was made effective in Rajasthan on 19-11-1985, vide No.79/17/85, dated 18th November, 1985, Gazette of India, Pt. II, Sec.1. 6. The Heading of 'CHAPTER V' of the Family Court Act, 1984 i.e. “Appeals” was substituted by Section 2 of Act 59 of 1991, to heading “Appeals And Revisions” w.e.f. 28.12.1991. Following words were inserted in Sub-section (2) of Section 19 which reads as under:-“or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (2 of 1974):” Similarly Sub-section (4) was also inserted in Section 19 vide Section 2 of Act 59 of 1991 w.e.f. 28.12.1991. By the same Act 59 of 1991, vide Section 2, Sub-section (4) and (5) were re-numbered as Sub-section (5) and (6), respectively, w.e.f. 28.12.1991. (2 of 1974):” Similarly Sub-section (4) was also inserted in Section 19 vide Section 2 of Act 59 of 1991 w.e.f. 28.12.1991. By the same Act 59 of 1991, vide Section 2, Sub-section (4) and (5) were re-numbered as Sub-section (5) and (6), respectively, w.e.f. 28.12.1991. The original Section 19 of the Act of 1984 reads as under:- “19.Appeal.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. (4) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. (5) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.” Section 19, after its amendment w.e.f. 28-12-1991 reads as under:- “19. Appeal.-(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties (or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991). (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. (4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding. (5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.” 7. From the above quoted original and amended Section 19 of the Act of 1984, it is clear that the powers of revision of High Court in respect of order passed by Family Court under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. were inserted. It was also provided that an appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges. From newly/inserted Sub-section (4), it is clear that revision petitions are maintainable before High Court in respect of orders passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. falls under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. Sub-section (2) of Section 19, as amended in 1991, makes it clear that no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by Family Court in two circumstances i.e.- i) against the order or decree passed with the consent of the parties; ii) from an order passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., 1973, i.e. order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (6) makes it abundantly clear that appeal against the order of Family Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting two or more Judges. There is no specific provision about hearing revision petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 19, as to whether it will be heard by Single Bench or Division Bench or a Bench consisting of more than two Judges. 8. There is no specific provision about hearing revision petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 19, as to whether it will be heard by Single Bench or Division Bench or a Bench consisting of more than two Judges. 8. From the above, it is abundantly clear that an order of Family Court passed on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. is revisable, before High Court, under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984. The present revision petition filed under Section 19(6) of the Act of 1984 is treated as revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984. The necessary corrections/amendments may be made in subject matter of this petition. 9. The next question for consideration before us is as to “whether the revision petition preferred under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984 should be heard by a Judge sitting alone or by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges?” 10. So far as judgment or order passed by Family Court (except order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or order with the consent of parties) are concerned, the same are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act and the appeal to be heard by Bench consisting of two or more Judges, in view of Section 19(6) of the Act of 1984. Since, Family Court Act, 1984 is silent about hearing of revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984, whether it should be heard by Single Bench or Division Bench, therefore, we can refer the Rules of The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1952'), in this regard. The jurisdiction of Single Bench and Division Bench has been given in Chapter V of Rules of 1952. Chapter V starts from Rule 54. Relevant rules 54, 55 and 61, are reproduced as under:- “54. Constitution of Benches.- Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts, as may be constituted from time to time and do such work, as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his direction. 55. Chapter V starts from Rule 54. Relevant rules 54, 55 and 61, are reproduced as under:- “54. Constitution of Benches.- Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts, as may be constituted from time to time and do such work, as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his direction. 55. Jurisdiction of a Single Judge.-Except as provided by these Rules or other Law, the following cases shall ordinarily be admitted, heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone, namely.- (i) a motion for the admission of a memorandum of appeal or cross-objection or an application for exparte interim order; (ii) a civil appeal; (iii) an execution appeal; (iv) a civil revision; (v) a Suit or proceeding in the nature of a suit coming before the Court in the exercise of its original or extraordinary original civil, testamentary or matrimonial jurisdiction including a proceeding under The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Act No. II of 1882). The Company Act, 1956 (Act No. I of 1956), The Designs Act, 1911 (Act No. II of 1911) or the Patents Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970); (vi) a reference under section 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No.III of 1955); (vii) a case or proceeding under section 30 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XV of 1949); (viii) a criminal appeal, application or reference under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law except an appeal, application or reference in a case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for life has been passed and in criminal matters against acquittal arising out of offences punishable only with death or imprisonment for life; (ix) a case coming before the Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction; (x) an appeal or division from an order passed under sections 340, 341 and 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (xi) the writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, except the Writ Petitions challenging the vires of the provisions of any Act. (xii) an application under article 228 of the Constitution of India and the case withdrawn under the said Article; Provided that (a) the Chief Justice may, from time to time direct that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, (b) a Judge may, if he thinks fit, refer a case which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone on any question or questions of law arising therein for decision to a Bench of two Judges; (c) a Judge before whom any proceedings under The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Act No. II of 1882), The Companies Act, 1956 (Act No. I of 1956). The Designs Act, 1911 (Act No. II of 1911) or The Patents Act, 1970 (Act NO. 39 of 1970) is pending, may with the sanction of the Chief Justice, obtain the assistance of one or more other Judges for the hearing and determination of such proceedings or of any question or questions arising therein. 61. Cases to be heard by two Judges.-Save as otherwise provided by these Rules or other law or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges, provided that, on any day when there is only one Judge sitting on the Bench, such Judge may exercise jurisdiction which may be exercised by a vacation Judge during the vacation.” 11. As per Rule 55(x), an order passed under Section 340, 341 and 343 of Cr.P.C., there is specific provision for listing revision petition before Single Judge. After enactment of the Act of 1984 or the amendment thereunder in the year 1991, the rules of High Court have not been amended about hearing of revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984. 12. It appears that earlier, the appeals were being filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act before this Court against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. but, after amendment made in Section 19 of the Act of 1984, w.e.f. 28-12-1991, the position was changed and the matter was examined by Hon'ble Mr. 12. It appears that earlier, the appeals were being filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act before this Court against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. but, after amendment made in Section 19 of the Act of 1984, w.e.f. 28-12-1991, the position was changed and the matter was examined by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain in administrative side, and it was opined that Sub-section (6) of Section 19, as amended by the Act 59 of 1991 applies to appeals and not to revisions, as such, it is not necessary that revision petitions filed under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984 should be listed before Division Bench and it was directed that it should be listed before Single Bench. Judicial Section of the High Court was accordingly directed. The opinion/note of Hon'ble Justice Milap Chandra Jain dated 18.08.1992 was placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice, who agreed with the learned Judge and instructions were ordered to be issued. Thereafter, Registrar of this Court issued instructions dated 19.11.1992, which are reproduced as under:- “Extract copy of Note of Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Jain J. with regard to Family Courts (Amendment) Act 1991 Para 219/D to Para 223/N, Cen/XV/(g)3/87 219. Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984, as amended by Section 2 of Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 runs as under : “19. Appeal.- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or 1) any other law, an appeal shall lie from every Judgment or order, not being inter-locutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the Parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the amendment of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before High Court or any order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the amendment of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before High Court or any order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the amendment of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the Judgment or order of a Family Court. (4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of notifying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding. (5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more judges.” 220. Now no appeal lies from an order passed (after 22.12.91.) under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and revision lies against such an order. 221. Sub-Section (6) of Section 19, as amended by the Act No.59 of 1991, applies to appeals and not to revisions. As such it is not necessary that revisions filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 should be listed before a Division Bench. It may be listed before a Single Bench. Judicial Section may kindly be directed accordingly. Sd/- (MILAP CHANDRA JAIN) J. 18.08.92 223. HON'BLE THE C. J. I agree. As proposed, instructions be issued Sd/- K.C. Agarwal Hon'ble C.J. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR Gen/XV/(a)/3/87/2777-78 Dated. 19.11.1992 Copy forwarded to Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur/Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for information and necessary action Sd/- R.C. Sood REGISTRAR 13. The jurisdiction of Single Judge has been defined under Rule 55. As per rule 54, it has been prescribed that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts, as may be constituted from time to time and do such work, as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his direction. The jurisdiction of Single Judge has been defined under Rule 55. As per rule 54, it has been prescribed that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts, as may be constituted from time to time and do such work, as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his direction. As per Rule 61, it has been prescribed that save as otherwise provided by these Rules or other law or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges, provided that, on any day when there is only one Judge sitting on the Bench, such Judge may exercise jurisdiction which may be exercised by a vacation Judge during the vacation. 14. A co-joint reading of Rule 54 and 61 makes it clear that it is a prerogative of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice to constitute Single Bench or Division Bench or Bench of more Judges for the cases, which are not covered by Rule 55. 15. Usually, a criminal revision petition is preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. against orders passed which are revisable. So far as order passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in Rajasthan, the family courts have not been established in whole of the Rajasthan. Till now, 28 Family Courts including 15 Family Courts, which have been established in the year 2012, are working. There are two situations in respect of orders passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The orders passed by Family Court in Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. i.e. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is revisable under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984. The order passed in Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. i.e. Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate concerned is revisable under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. As per practice of this Court, the revision petitions against order of Judicial Magistrate, passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are to be filed before Session Judge having jurisdiction and in case, it is filed directly before this Court, as this Court has concurrent jurisdiction, then the same are listed before Single Bench. 16. 16. We are considering the orders passed by Family Court while exercising its powers under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. The order passed by Family Court under Chapter IX is not appealable, in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984, as amended w.e.f. 28-12-1991 and is only revisable under Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984. So far as orders, other than orders passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. passed by the Family Court are concerned, the same are appealable under Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984 before Bench consisting two or more Judges, but so far as revision petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 19 is concerned, the Legislature has left it open for the respective High Courts or the same depends on the Rules of the respective High Courts, as to whether the same will be heard by a Bench of Hon'ble Judge sitting alone or by a Bench of two or more Judges. So far as Rajasthan State is concerned, we have already mentioned above that the matter was examined and opined earlier in administrative side and it was directed that such revision petitions be heard by a Single Bench as directed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the instructions were issued in this regard. Since, the competent authority i.e. Hon'ble The Chief Justice has ordered to issue instructions in this regard, i.e. to list the revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984 before Single Bench, in our view, the said instructions are to be treated as an order issued by Hon'ble The Chief Justice under Rule 54 read with Rule 61 of the Rules of 1952. 17. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that since 1991, such revisions are heard by Single Bench only. It is a consistent practice that after issuance of above instructions, such revisions against order of Family Court passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are being filed and heard by Single Bench. Therefore, a consistent practice/procedure is going on for the last about 22 years. 18. In these circumstances, it appears from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th July, 2013 that the instructions issued by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, as reproduced above, were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It also appears that the amendment made in sub-sec. 18. In these circumstances, it appears from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th July, 2013 that the instructions issued by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, as reproduced above, were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It also appears that the amendment made in sub-sec. (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 1984 in the year 1991 was also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, resulting in passing the said order. 19. In these circumstances and in view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the present revision petition be treated as revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Act of 1984 and in view of above referred instructions, the same is liable to be heard by Single Bench. 20. Now, the next question remains for consideration is as to whether the revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Act of 1984 should be treated as Civil Revision Petition or Criminal Revision Petition for the purpose of determining the roster? 21. As per Section 10 of the Act of 1984, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable for the purpose of procedure on the Family Courts, but Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. has been excluded in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 10 itself. For the purpose of deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court, the Family Court is required to follow the procedure as laid down in Criminal Procedure Code. The revisional court is also, therefore, required to follow the procedure and provisions of Cr.P.C. while deciding the revision petition arising out of order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, these revision petitions are to be treated as criminal revision petitions. However, in view of specific provision contained under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984, such revision petitions arising out of order passed by Family Court under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. will be entertained under Section 19(4) and not under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Since, Hon'ble The Chief Justice has already passed an order to list revision petitions under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1984 before Single Bench, therefore, this criminal revision petition will be heard by Single Bench having the roster of Criminal Revision Petitions. 22. 22. Consequently, we direct the Registry to list this criminal revision petition before Single Bench having roster. 23. Registry is further directed to circulate this order to all concerned officers/officials of the Registry.