1. This case has been listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on my orders.

2. By order dated 5.5.2006 passed in this case, I had held that against an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (In short "the Act") with reference to Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (In short "Cr. PC"), the order being passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Cr.P.C, the remedy would be under Cr. PC. and not Civil Procedure Code (In short, "C.P.C."). In other words the appropriate remedy would be by filing a criminal revision. Liberty was then granted to the petitioners to convert the civil revision application into a criminal revision application by the said order.

3. Thereafter, another case being Civil Revision No. 2045 of 2005 came before me under similar circumstances. The same objection was raised. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Wasi Akhtar appearing for the petitioner in the said case brought to my notice the provisions of the Act including Section 7(2)(a) and Sec. 19(4) of the Act thereof which were not brought to my notice in the earlier case. On perusal of those provisions, I held that the revision application is an a