No statute prescribes a limitation period for revisions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act; a reasonable period of 90 days may be implied for filing such revisions without needing to condone delays.

ORDER :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

What is the period of limitation for filing a Revision Petition under Section 19 (4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, before the High Court? - This is the short but important question that arises for consideration in this unnumbered Revision Petition.

2. The 1^st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are the children born to the 1^st petitioner in wedlock with the 1^st respondent. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent filed a maintenance case against the 1^st respondent under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. as MC No.75/2018 before the Family Court, Pala. The Family Court, after trial, allowed the maintenance case in part and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 2^nd respondent and Rs.3,500/- to the 2^nd petitioner from the date of the petition. The claim of the 1^st petitioner for maintenance was rejected.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, the petitioners preferred the revision petition against the 1^st respondent before this Court.

3. The Registry raised an objection that there was a delay of 174 days in filing the revision petition. The revision petitioners did not file any application to condone the delay. On the other hand, the 1^st petitioner filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. The Registry took the view that the limitation period prescribed to prefer revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT is 90 days as per Article 131 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, and hence, an application to condone the delay supported by an affidavit should be filed. The revision petitioners took the stand that no period of limitation is prescribed for preferring revision under Section 19 (4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , and hence, no delay condonation application is required. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Bench.

4. Considering the importance of the question of law involved, Adv. Shajna Mullath has been appointed as Amicus Curiae. I have heard Sri. Ravi Sankar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae.

5. Chapter IX of Cr. P.C. (Chapter X of BNSS ) deals with the maintenance of the wives, children and parents. Before the enactment of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, the applications under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C were dealt with by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Courts. By virtue of Section 7(2)(a) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents became vested with the Family Court. Chapter V of the FAMILY COURTS ACT deals with appeals and revisions. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that an appeal shall not lie to the High Court from an order passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. However, the order passed under Chapter IX is revisable before the High Court under sub-section (4). The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Ravi Sankar submitted that Section 19 (3) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT prescribes a limitation period of thirty days for filing appeals, but when it comes to filing of revision under Section 19 (4), it does not so provide and hence no period of limitation is prescribed for filing revision under Section 19 (4). The learned counsel further submitted that going by the scheme of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , the revision petition filed against an order passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C is not a revision that falls under Section 397 of