CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition has been placed before us to decide whether the order passed under Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 (henceforth in brief referred to for convenience as 'the Act' ( by the Family Court has to be challenged either as a Civil Revision Petition or as a Criminal Revision Petition and has to be disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court under the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Such a situation had occurred before the learned single Judge of this Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sathyabhama v. Ramachandran reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 143 : (1997 Cri LJ 4306), wherein it was held that for the purpose of Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act (as amended in 1991), the Family Court acted as a Criminal Court and not as a Civil Court and in that view of the matter, the revision petitions to challenge the orders under the said provision of law has to be registered as revision petition (Family Court) liable to be disposed of by a learned single Judge under Sec. 3 (8) of the Kerala High Court Act as proceedings of a Criminal Court. The order for reference by the learned single Judge BSSRJ reads as under :"the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has relied on 1998 (1) Crimes 143 : (1997 Cri LJ 4306) Kerala High Court Full Bench in Sathya Bhama v. Ramachandran wherein it has been held that "application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance - Whether Family Court acts as a Civil Court or as a Criminal Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 (2) (a) of the Act and disposing of applications filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. the Family Court acts as a Criminal Court and not as a Civil Court - Revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Act against order passed in maintenance application are liable to be treated as revisions filed against orders passed by a Court acting as criminal Court. "in the present case on hand, office has raised objections in view of the order passed by the Bench wherein it has been ordered that after going through the provisions of the Family Courts Amendment Act, 1991 which came into force w. e. f. 28-2-1991 we find that the matter has to be registered as Civil Revision Petition and it will have to be disposed of by the learned single Judge under the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. We direct the Office to register the matter as Revision Petition. In view of the above, the matter has to be placed before the Division Bench to consider Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court about the registration of the Revision Petition against the order passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by Family Court. "

( 2 ) IT is relevant here to mention at the outset that the Registry at the first instance had raised an Office Objection as to the very maintainability of the Criminal Revn. Petn. in the light of an unreported order/decision dt. 9-11-94 in Cr. A. No. 126/94 passed by the Division Bench wherein it was held that it was only a Civil Revn. Petn. that was maintainable under Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act. At the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, Sri. Deshpande, the matter had been posted before the learned single Judge to hear on the Office objection on 25-3-98 and finally on the adjourned dt. on 2-4-98, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned single Judge BSSRJ had passed the orders of reference as above.

( 3 ) AS we see, the following three questions arise for our consideration in the reference : (i) Whether the revision petition filed under Sec. 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (as amended) in short henceforth as the Act) has to be treated and numbered as a Civil Revision Petition or a Criminal Revision Petition ? (ii) Whether the Family Court while exercising the jurisdiction exercisable by the Magistrate of the I Class under Chapter IX (Relating to order for maintenance of the wife, childr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document