ORDER :

T. Raja, J.

The learned single Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Sivagnanam, in his order dated 07.12.2022, refusing to entertain the Criminal Revision Case No.1094 of 2021 filed by the petitioner/husband against the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in C.M.P.No.97 of 2018 in M.C.No.194 of 2015 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, in and by which the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 24.10.2016 passed in M.C.No.194 of 2015 granting maintenance to the respondents/wife & child, has concluded that the right of maintenance is of civil nature, therefore, the criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the said order, no criminal revision case is entertained by the Registry against any order passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The matter was taken on board and by order dated 10.04.2023, we have requested Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General to assist the Court on the issue whether the view taken by the learned single Judge that no criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will lie as against the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is correct or not, in the light of the procedures mentioned in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, may be summarized thus :

The marriage of Sheela Regina, the first respondent herein was solemnized with Maria Antony Chandra Prakash, the petitioner herein on 25.04.2012, as per the Christian rites and customs at Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and they were blessed with a female child on 04.03.2014. Since their marital relationship underwent a dramatic change, the first respondent/wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore in M.C.No.194 of 2015 seeking an order directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month each to the wife and child as maintenance from the date of petition till the date of disposal, on the premise that both the wife and child were ill-treated by the husband without even providing proper food to either of them. It was also alleged therein that the husband abused her with filthy words, assaulted her and also defamed her parents. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, proceeding ex parte against the husband on his absence, passed an order on 24.10.2016 directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month payable to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month payable to the child towards maintenance from 07.12.2015, which shall be payable on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, coming to the conclusion that the claim of the husband that he was not aware of the ex parte order being false, dismissed his application by the order dated 22.04.2021, as against which the present criminal revision case under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted.

4. Today, Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would put a quietus to the issue raised by the learned single Judge. Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act states that the High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in