Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance before the Jurisdictional Family Court on 27-10-2014. That case was fixed before the Family Court on, 22-1-2015 for recording evidence of petitioners herein, but on that day, the petitioners could not appear before the Family Court and the Family Court dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

3. Petitioners herein have directly rushed to this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating inter alia that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of petitioners before the Family Court on the date, of hearing.

4. On being asked, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that application for restoration is not maintainable before the Family Court as proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. is applicable where the non-applicant in the said case proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte order of maintenance is passed, but proviso to Section 126(2) does not contemplate a situation where maintenance application itself has been dismissed for want of prosecution, and therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be entertained and the order of Family Court dismissing their case for want of prosecution be restored to its original number.

5. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Advocate, appearing in the case as Amicus Curiae on the request of Court, would submit that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court is not strictly a criminal proceeding under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such, the application for restoration before the Family Court would be maintainable to restore the maintenance application, which was dismissed in default. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed by High Courts in cases of Pandharinath Sakharam Thube v. Kum. Surekha Pandharinath Thube and others, 1999 Cri.LJ 2919, Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1980 Cri.LJ 80, Lavinder Pal Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and others, 2013 Cri.LJ 3701 and Shabihul Hasan Jafari v. Zarin Fatima and another, 2000 Cri.LJ 3051.

6. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the decisions rendered by the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana in above referred cases (supra), dealing with the same points as raised herein in this petition.

8. In a decision reported in Smt. Prema Jain (supra), the High Court of Delhi after considering the various authorities has held that Magistrate hearing an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. had power to set aside dismissal of application and can restore the maintenance application, and held as under:--

"25. The order in the present case was administrative in nature rather than a judicial one, and the Magistrate cannot be held to be incapable of reviewing or reversing the same. This view finds strength in the provisions following Section 125 in the same Chapter, which entitle the Court to alter, to review or even to cancel its judicial orders."

9. Further in case of Pandharinath Sakharam Thube (supra), Bombay High Court has held that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are in the nature of civil proceedings. Though they are wholly governed by the procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are really of civil nature, and observed as under:--

"7. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of civil proceedings. Though they are wholly governed by the procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are really of civil nature, but are dealt with summarily in a Criminal Court for the purpose of speedy disposal on grounds of convenience and social order. In the present case at hand, the claim of maintenance of Surekha was not at all considered by the Lower Court. It was erroneous on the part of the learned Magistrate not to consider her claim.