K. Harilal, J.

The petitioner is the respondent in MC No. 356/2009 on the files of Family Court, Malappuram. The above MC was filed by the respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, claiming maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their marriage was solemnized on 09/09/2007. According to the respondent, the petitioner has been neglecting to maintain her and refused to pay maintenance allowance to her. She has no job or any other sources of income for her livelihood. Whereas, the petitioner is employed as a driver abroad and in addition to that, he has sufficient income from his agricultural activities also. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The petitioner herein filed a counter statement admitting the marital status of the respondent, but he denied the other allegations in the MC. According to the petitioner, the respondent herself left the marital home, without sufficient reasons. It is also contended that, she is blind and a considerable amount is required for the treatment of her eyes. But the fact of blindness was suppressed at the time of marriage. He admitted that, he is working abroad but, he is employed as a cleaner and getting an amount of 600 Riyals only as monthly salary. He is not a driver by profession, as contended by the respondent. After considering the rival contentions, the Court below directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The legality and propriety of the entitlement of maintenance allowance and the correctness of the quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the Court below are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings whereby, the Court below directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance as referred above. Firstly, the learned Counsel contended that, a joint trial conducted by the Court below is vitiated by the procedural irregularity in view of the Sections 7 and 10 of the Family Court Act. It is the argument that, according to Section 7, the Family Court has jurisdiction to try all the cases, coming under sub-section (1)(a) to (g) and sub-section 2(a) & (b) of Section 7. But according to Section 10, Family Court cannot try an OP claiming recovery of gold ornaments and an MC claiming maintenance allowance together at a joint trial. The learned Counsel further contends that, according to sub-section 1 of Section 10, while considering the OP claiming recovery of gold ornaments, Code of Civil Procedure is applicable and for trying an MC claiming maintenance allowance, Code of Criminal Procedure or the rules made thereunder are applicable. Therefore, so long as different procedures are contemplated separately for trying OP and MC, both cases cannot be tried jointly.

3. In view of the above argument, the question to be considered is, whether a joint trial of original petition claiming recovery of gold ornaments and MC claiming maintenance allowance is vitiated by a procedural irregularity? As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, according to Section 7(a) and (b) of the Family Court Act, the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force, in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation and be deemed to be District Court or as the case may be Subordinate Civil Court, for the area as to which jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

4. Similarly, according to sub-section 2 of Section 7 of Family Court shall also have jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to sub-section 1 of Section 10, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to th