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 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:?

(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 h