ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for 1 st respondent. 2. Petitioner is the husband of 1 st respondent and father of 2 nd respondent. There are disputes between the petitioner and 1 st respondent. 1 st respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was dismissed. Thereupon, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed. According to the petitioner, he has been paying maintenance to both the respondents. In proof of the same, he has filed a statement. Even then, respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C . vide F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner claiming maintenance from him. During pendency of the said F.C.M.C., from 06.01.2025 onwards, his daughter, 2 nd respondent, came to him voluntarily and staying with him. He is providing education and other facilities to her. In order to prove the aforesaid aspects, he has filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit him to produce 2 nd respondent, minor, as a witness to give her evidence in the aforesaid F.C.M.C. 3. In the said Crl.M.P., 1 st respondent herein has filed a counter contending that as the aforesaid F.C.M.C. is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C ., there is no need to produce 2 nd respondent as a witness for giving evidence. Moreover, she is aged about 13 years and is studying 8 th class. Therefore, her evidence is not required. 4. Vide order dated 04.06.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said Crl.M.P. holding that 2 nd respondent is a minor child aged about 13 years and therefore, she would not have knowledge about the marital disputes between the petitioner and 1 st respondent. The petitioner has not mentioned any reason to produce the minor girl for giving evidence. Challenging the said order dated 04.06.2025, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. The petitioner has not mentioned any reason to produce the minor girl for giving evidence. Challenging the said order dated 04.06.2025, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned Family Court failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. He has to prove the events taken place subsequent to the filing of the said F.C.M.C. that 2 nd respondent is staying with him during pendency of the said F.C.M.C. In order to bring the same on record, it is necessary to produce 2 nd respondent as a witness to give her evidence before the Family Court. Without considering the said aspect, vide order dated 04.06.2025, the learned Family Court dismissed the said Crl.M.P. 6. Learned counsel for 1 st respondent would contend that the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Respondents filed the said F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C and proceedings in the said petition are quasi-criminal in nature. The petition filed by the petitioner in the said F.C.M.C. was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 and vide order dated 04.06.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed the said Crl.M.P. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 04.06.2025, he has to file a revision either under Section 397 Cr.P.C . read with Section 401 Cr.P.C . It is further contended that F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019 was filed neither for custody of the child nor for divorce. Therefore, there is no need of examination of 2 nd respondent. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court passed the order under revision dated 04.06.2025. In view of the same, he sought to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that the respondents have filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C . vide F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner claiming maintenance. 8. Chapter III of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’), deals with jurisdiction. vide F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner claiming maintenance. 8. Chapter III of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’), deals with jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act is relevant and it is extracted below: “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 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) 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 a 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 the 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 of, 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.” 9. Section 10 of the Act deals with the general procedure. Section 10 of the Act deals with the general procedure. The same is relevant and it is extracted below: “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. 10. Thus, F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019 filed by the respondents before the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C is quasi-criminal in nature, and the Crl.M.P. filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rules 1 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC is also quasi-criminal in nature. Therefore, the provisions of CPC are not applicable insofar as the said proceedings in F.C.M.C. are concerned in terms of Section 10(1) and (2) of the Act. 11. The question with regard to the applicability of the said provisions and maintainability of the revision filed before the Court fell for consideration before the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Shukla v. Meena and others , [2005(2) ALT (Cri) 30] , wherein, the Full Bench framed 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)?” The Full Bench also considered the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , and Chapter IX of Cr.P.C . and placed reliance on another Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Satyabhama v Ramchandra , [1998(I) Crimes 143] which considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and also Section 125 Cr.P.C . 12. and placed reliance on another Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Satyabhama v Ramchandra , [1998(I) Crimes 143] which considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and also Section 125 Cr.P.C . 12. On consideration of the said judgments and provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , and Chapter IX of Cr.P.C ., the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C . filed before the Family Court are quasi-criminal in nature. Therefore, aggrieved by any order passed by the Family Court in the said proceedings, the parties have to file a Criminal Revision Petition. 13. In M. Shiv Raj v. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and others , [ 1995(1) ALT 595 ] , the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a revision in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C . is maintainable challenging any order passed either by the learned Magistrate or by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C . It was further held that having regard to the provisions of law under Section 125 or 127 of Cr.P.C , the petitioner therein failed to show sufficient grounds invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the Court to interfere with the order in M.C.No.21 of 1990 dated 05.07.1991, more so, when there is a specific provision contemplated in this behalf under Section 397 of Cr.P.C . which enables a party to move either the Sessions Court or the High Court. 14. In the light of the afore-cited decisions, this Court is of the view that the present revision filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court- cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 in F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019, is not maintainable. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law challenging the order under revision dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 in F.C.M.C. No.12 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.