ORDER : The short question that fell for consideration in this revision petition is whether a petition filed on under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, before a Family Court can be permitted to be amended as a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order, dated 05-02-2020, allowing I.A.No.966 of 2019 in O.P.No.1236 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed by the respondents herein against the revision petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the provision of law in the petition in O.P.1236 of 2014 by substituting the words “petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973” for “petition filed under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act”. 2. The respondents herein originally filed petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘HAMA’) vide O.P.No.1236 of 2014, against the revision petitioner for maintenance. As the revision petitioner contested the petition on the ground that the provisions of HAMA are not applicable to community of the schedule tribes unless a notification issued by the Central Government is published in the official Gazette as required under Section 2(2) of the HAMA, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.966 of 2019 to amend the provision of law of the petition in O.P.No.1236 of 2014 from Section 18 of HAMA to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The petition in I.A.No.966 of 2019 was opposed on the ground that the civil case cannot be converted as a criminal case by amending the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The Family Court passed the Order as follows: “In fact this objection is taken by this Court at the time of enquiry and thus the petitioners came with the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is sought for to change the Section of Law to suit the relief of maintenance sought for by the petitioners and thus it does not introduce any fresh cause of action nor changes the fundamental character of the petition. The proposed amendment is sought for to change the Section of Law to suit the relief of maintenance sought for by the petitioners and thus it does not introduce any fresh cause of action nor changes the fundamental character of the petition. The objection raised by the respondent that the civil proceedings cannot be converted into criminal proceedings does not hold water for Section 125 Cr.P.C., proceedings are quasi civil and criminal and as per Section 7 of Family Courts Act r/w Section 10, the Court is competent to apply the provisions of CPC., as well as Cr.P.C., regarding any petition filed under Section 7 of Family Courts Act. Since all the proceedings on the file of Family Court are being governed by the Family Courts Act, I find substance in the petitioner’s contention. Accordingly, the point is answered.” 4. In spite of service of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have not made appearance. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 6. Section 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the HAMA read as under: “2. Application of Act.?(1) This Act applies? (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. Explanation.?The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:? Explanation.?The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:? (a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion; (b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; any child, legitimate or illegitimate, who has been abandoned both by his father and mother or whose parentage is not known and who in either case is brought up as a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh; and (c) any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.” 7. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that by virtue of Section 2 (2) of HAMA., proceeding under Section 18 of HAMA is not maintainable between the parties herein as there is no notification said to have been issued under Section 2 (2) of HAMA. Therefore, the only question to be answered is whether the amendment permitted by the trial Court is sustainable. 8. Leaned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a civil proceeding cannot be converted into criminal proceeding by adopting provision under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC. 9. Normally, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are maintainable before a Judicial First Class Magistrate as per the same provision, and whereas, the proceedings under Section 18 of HAMA are maintainable in a civil Court. But, in view of the special jurisdiction conferred on a Family Court under Section 7 (1) explanation (f) and 7 (2) (a) the Family Courts Act, 1984, the same Court can deal with both proceedings either under Section 18 HAMA or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows: “7. But, in view of the special jurisdiction conferred on a Family Court under Section 7 (1) explanation (f) and 7 (2) (a) the Family Courts Act, 1984, the same Court can deal with both proceedings either under Section 18 HAMA or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows: “7. Jurisdiction.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- -(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 purposes 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-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:- (a) xxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) xxxxx (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) xxxxx (2) Subject to 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.” 11. If a petition is filed before a Civil Court having no jurisdiction over the subject matter, if required, permission would be taken to withdraw the same and present before the appropriate Court or such petition would be not pressed and a fresh petition would be filed before the appropriate Court. 12. But here, since under a special law, jurisdiction under both the Acts is conferred on the same Court, the normal course need not be adopted. 12. But here, since under a special law, jurisdiction under both the Acts is conferred on the same Court, the normal course need not be adopted. Either under Order VI, Rule 17 or Section 151 C.P.C., appropriate remedy is to treat the petition filed under Section 18 HAMA as one filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The special jurisdiction of the Family Court is abundantly explicit in many of its provisions conferring separate kind of authorities on it, deviating from many established normal procedures and practices in view of the special purpose for and avowed object with which it is created. For example, especially, section 13 curtailing right of representation by a legal practitioner, section 14 providing an exception to Evidence Act to receive evidence whether or not relevant or admissible, section 7 brings forth several matters which otherwise would have been dealt by several or different courts under one umbrella, etc. The Family Courts Act, 1984 is impregnated with many such special features. Therefore, matters before any Family Court must be dealt with keeping in view such special status it is given to deal with family matters in a different manner than customary style of working of courts or procedures adopted to meet the special requirement. 13. It is pertinent to note that it is well settled law that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi criminal in nature. The same view is expressed by the High Court of Madras in its decision in Chinnappaiyan Vs. Chinnathayee, dt.03.02.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.780 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 explaining the reasons as follows: “8. I have considered the rival submissions. Before going into the other aspects of the issues involved, let me, at first, discuss about the nature of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code. No doubt, it is a social legislation to protect the women/children/parents, who are in need of support. When such claim for maintenance is made under the personal law, the right is decided by the Civil Court. Only with a view to have a speedy disposal of such claims for maintenance, having regard to the urgent need of the victims of desertion and neglect, the Parliament thought it fit to incorporate the provision to enable the victims to claim maintenance through the criminal court. Only with a view to have a speedy disposal of such claims for maintenance, having regard to the urgent need of the victims of desertion and neglect, the Parliament thought it fit to incorporate the provision to enable the victims to claim maintenance through the criminal court. Thus, though a petition under Section 125 (1) of the Code is made before the criminal court - as defined under Section 6 of the Code essentially, the right that is decided by the said Court is purely civil in nature. Therefore, undoubtedly, the order made by the Magistrate under Section 125 (1) of the Code for maintenance is the culmination of such a civil right of an individual. But, Section 125(3) of the Code empowers the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment, in the event of failure to obey such order made under Section 125(1) of the Code. To this extent, the proceeding is criminal in nature. To put it comprehensively, a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Code is quasi-civil and quasi-criminal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held so in several judgments. Regarding the procedure for making claim before the Court for maintenance, what is filed under Section 125 (1) of the Code is pure and simple a petition and not a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code. This would again indicate that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is treated as a quasi-civil and quasi criminal proceeding.” 14. The same view is expressed by the High Court of Karnataka also in Venkatesh M vs Smt Yellamma, dt. 18.09.2020; R.P.F.C. NO.37 OF 2015, as follows: “Bearing that in mind, let me state that a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is quasi civil and quasi criminal. It is civil in nature, since, it decides the civil rights of the parties to claim maintenance. When the order is not obeyed by the person against whom the same has been made, then the Court is empowered to impose a punishment of imprisonment for every breach of the order for a term which may extend to one month or until payment is sooner is made. To that extent, it is criminal in nature. To put it comprehensively, I have to state that the proceeding is quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature.” 15. To that extent, it is criminal in nature. To put it comprehensively, I have to state that the proceeding is quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature.” 15. Since grant of maintenance, more particularly under section 125 of Cr.P.C., is regarded as a provision meant as social justice, endeavour of Court must be to advance cause of justice but not to frustrate it by unnecessary rigid and hyper-technical approach. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 549 (SC), the Supreme Court held as follows: Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [ (2008) 2 SCC 316 ], it has been ruled that: Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [ (1978) 4 SCC 70 ] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [ (2005) 3 SCC 636 ]. 16. It is always said that procedure is the handmaid of justice and is intended to advance cause of justice and not to thwart it. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 , wherein it was observed as under:- “It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.” 17. The Family Court is given jurisdiction under both C.P.C., and Cr.P.C which is a unique feature. 10. Procedure generally.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court. -(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other. Though demarcation appears in subsection (1) on a bare reading, such deference comes only for the purpose of adjudication of a matter under that category of matter. It does not come in the way of converting one category of matter into another category of matter for adjudicating the same subject with the same or may be substantially the same, factual or legal matrix. Any Court always has inherent jurisdiction to permit the parties to amend the pleadings, even in the absence of express enabling provision for such amendment, so long as it is not expressly prohibited or not inconsistent with express provision. The amendment shall be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to completely decide the dispute between the parties when the amendment does not result in prejudice to the other party. As the entire factual matrix remained the same, there is no change in the case, except altering the provision of law under which the relief is sought. The parameters for granting the relief of maintenance may slightly vary on change in the provision of law. But, after the amendment is carried out and a neat copy of the petition is filed, an opportunity will be given to the revision petitioner/respondent to file additional counter and no prejudice would be caused as he can raise all grounds which are available in respect of such provision. 18. The order impugned is in consonance with law and well settled principles of law discussed above. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality done by the Family Court in passing the order impugned. As such, it does not require interference in revision. On such conversion, some changes may be required to be made in the registers maintained by the Court and shall be noted. 19. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.