CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, J.

1. This application has come up for consideration before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that in exercise of the power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who happens to be the husband of one Ram Kumari Devi, was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to her and Rs. 150/- each for the two children. Petitioner filed application dated 5.4.2004 under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recall of the said order. Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani by order dated 26.2.2008 passed in M.R. No. 6 of 1999 rejected the said prayer.

3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed this Criminal Revision appiication under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 .

4. The Stamp Reporter objected to the maintainability of Criminal Revision application and observed that against an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Civil Revision would lie. For the aforesaid view, the Stamp Reporter relied on a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Lata Devi & Ors. Vs. Umesh Nandan Sharma [2006(4) PLJR 333]. Petitioner contested the stamp-report and contended that the Principal Judge, Family Court having rejected application filed under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Revision would lie. The matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who doubted the correctness of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lata Devi & Ors. (supra) and referred the matter for decision by a Division Bench. This is how the matter has come up before us for consideration.

5. Mr. B.P. Verma, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the petitioner, whereas opposite party No.2 is represented by Mr. Prabhakar Kumar. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor, appears on behalf of the State. We have heard them.

6. True it is that the objection of the Stamp Reporter is founded on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lata Devi (supra). Neither the principle nor the precedents persuade me to sustain the objection of the Stamp Reporter.

7. The contention raised necessitates examination of the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is apt to reproduce Section 19 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"CHAPTER V [Appeals And Revisions] 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 intelocutory 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 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness 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