ORDER : T. Raja, J. The learned single Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Sivagnanam, in his order dated 07.12.2022, refusing to entertain the Criminal Revision Case No.1094 of 2021 filed by the petitioner/husband against the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in C.M.P.No.97 of 2018 in M.C.No.194 of 2015 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, in and by which the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 24.10.2016 passed in M.C.No.194 of 2015 granting maintenance to the respondents/wife & child, has concluded that the right of maintenance is of civil nature, therefore, the criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the said order, no criminal revision case is entertained by the Registry against any order passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The matter was taken on board and by order dated 10.04.2023, we have requested Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General to assist the Court on the issue whether the view taken by the learned single Judge that no criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will lie as against the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is correct or not, in the light of the procedures mentioned in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, may be summarized thus : The marriage of Sheela Regina, the first respondent herein was solemnized with Maria Antony Chandra Prakash, the petitioner herein on 25.04.2012, as per the Christian rites and customs at Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and they were blessed with a female child on 04.03.2014. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, may be summarized thus : The marriage of Sheela Regina, the first respondent herein was solemnized with Maria Antony Chandra Prakash, the petitioner herein on 25.04.2012, as per the Christian rites and customs at Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and they were blessed with a female child on 04.03.2014. Since their marital relationship underwent a dramatic change, the first respondent/wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore in M.C.No.194 of 2015 seeking an order directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month each to the wife and child as maintenance from the date of petition till the date of disposal, on the premise that both the wife and child were ill-treated by the husband without even providing proper food to either of them. It was also alleged therein that the husband abused her with filthy words, assaulted her and also defamed her parents. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, proceeding ex parte against the husband on his absence, passed an order on 24.10.2016 directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month payable to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month payable to the child towards maintenance from 07.12.2015, which shall be payable on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, coming to the conclusion that the claim of the husband that he was not aware of the ex parte order being false, dismissed his application by the order dated 22.04.2021, as against which the present criminal revision case under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted. 4. Today, Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would put a quietus to the issue raised by the learned single Judge. 4. Today, Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would put a quietus to the issue raised by the learned single Judge. Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act states that 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, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness of the order. Therefore, the High Court has got jurisdiction to test the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court. Similarly, the power vested under Section 397 of the Code also reiterates that the High Court may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. 5. Adding further, learned Advocate General submitted that Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act also makes it clear that a Family Court shall also have and exercise 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. That shows that the Family Courts are also vested with the powers of the Judicial Magistrate to deal with the issues relating to an order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. As regards Section 10(2) of the Family Courts Act, learned Advocate General submitted that when Section 10(2) also reiterates that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the right of maintenance is of civil nature, therefore, criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Section 397 of the Code, is unacceptable. 6. We have also gone through the materials available on record. 6. We have also gone through the materials available on record. The learned single Judge has refused to entertain the criminal revision case, for the following reasons:- (i) The right of maintenance is of civil nature, therefore, the criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Section 397 of the Code; (ii) Although the Family Court is vested with the power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be termed as a criminal Court, in respect of an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code, revision petition is maintainable before the High Court under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act before the Division Bench, but not a criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code before the single Bench. 7. Before we proceed to answer on the views expressed by the learned single Judge, it is relevant to refer to the following statutory provisions. Sections 7(2)(a), 8(b), 8(c), 10, 18 & 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are extracted hereunder:- “S.7. Jurisdiction. (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). S.8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Where a Family Court has been established for any area,— (a) ... (b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (i) & (ii) ... shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. S.10. shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. S.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. (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. S.18. Execution of decrees and orders.--(1) A decree or an order [other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the execution of decrees and orders. (2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. (3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary Civil Court to which it is sent for execution. S.19. (3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary Civil Court to which it is sent for execution. S.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. (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 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.” 8. This apart, Sections 6, 125, 126 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are extracted hereunder:- S.6. Classes of Criminal Courts.--Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-- (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class; and (iv) Executive Magistrates. Classes of Criminal Courts.--Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-- (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class; and (iv) Executive Magistrates. S.125. S.125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.--(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] Explanation.--For the purposes of this Chapter, (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.--If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.] (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. S.126. S.126. Procedure.--(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. (2) All evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. (3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just. S.397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.--(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (2) The powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” 9. A cursory reading of Section 397 of the Code would show that the High Court may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed. In the case on hand, admittedly the first respondent/wife Mrs.Sheela Regina has filed Maintenance Case No.194 of 2015 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction against her husband to pay the monthly maintenance to herself and the child. Secondly, the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, exercising the power conferred under Section 125 of the Code, has passed an order directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to his child. If any one is aggrieved by this order, by virtue of Section 397 of the Code, when the High Court can call for the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court, a revision under Section 397 of the Code will lie against this order grating sufficient or insufficient sum of maintenance. Thirdly, Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act also shows that where a Family Court has been established for any area, no Magistrate shall have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as per clause (c) of Section 8, every suit or proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. Although sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act says that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to the suits and proceedings before a Family Court deemed to be a Civil Court, subsection (2) of Section 10 makes it further clear that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court. Besides, Section 18(2) tells us vividly that an order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. This is further fortified by the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 10. Though the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against any order relating to the right of maintenance, as referred to by us already, a careful reading of Section 7(2)(a) and Section 10(2) of the Family Courts Act vividly makes the position clear that the Family Court is also considered as a Criminal Court and therefore, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX before a Family Court. This view of ours is also supported by a judgment of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Shukla v. Meena [ 2005 (2) MPLJ 483 ], wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as under : “4. From bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, it is apparent that jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of 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. 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. 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 a perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that Family Court exercises 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. Proceedings 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.” 11. In the light of the above legal position, the issue is no longer res integra, hence, we are of the considered view that as against the order passed by a Family Court either refusing or granting maintenance in favour of the wife or husband, the aggrieved party can always file a criminal revision under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of the above legal position, the issue is no longer res integra, hence, we are of the considered view that as against the order passed by a Family Court either refusing or granting maintenance in favour of the wife or husband, the aggrieved party can always file a criminal revision under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, even though the right of maintenance is a civil right, but, in the present context of having a remedy against the order directing the payment of such maintenance, it has to be seen that under Section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in case of non-compliance, the Family Court has to issue a warrant levying the amount due as if it is fine and will have to sentence such a person for imprisonment as provided. This apart, as per Section 126(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Court/Judicial Magistrate has to proceed in the matter as if it is a summons case. Coupled with this, on a consideration of the provisions in Sections 7(2)(a), 10, 18 and 19 of the Family Courts Act, we have no hesitation to hold that the aggrieved persons have to file only a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. Therefore, we direct the Registry to list the Criminal Revision Case No.1094 of 2021, as per roster, before the learned single Judge for disposal of the same on merits and in accordance with law.