JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. Present application has been filed with following prayer:-

“The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Case No. 244/11 of 2015 (Smt. Ashu Jain and others Vs. Shri Ashu Jain) passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar.”

3. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has raised preliminary objection and submitted that applicant is having statutory remedy to file revision under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984(hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1984’) read with Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Cr.P.C.’), therefore this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

4. Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant though not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, but submitted that though the revision is maintainable against an order of Family Court, but there is no absolute bar. In the present case, applicant is also raising question of fact, which is not possible in revision, therefore, application may be entertained.

5. She further submitted that Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009 (2) SCC 370 and Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (1977) SCC 551 has considered this fact and is of the opinion that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is equally maintainable challenging the order passed by Family Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that in light of Section 19 of Act, 1984, read with Section 396 of Cr.P.C., except as provided in Section 19 of Act, 1984, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of the Family Court. He also pointed out that against the very same judgment/order dated 03.03.2023, plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 has filed Criminal Revision No. 3148 f 2023, which is pending before this High Court. Therefore, this application is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the applicant is to file criminal revision. He placed reliance upon the judgments of Uttarakhand High Court in Crl. Mis. Application(C-482) No. 434 of 2018, Ashu Dhiman Vs. Smt. Jyoti Dhiman, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 60364 of 2022, Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Rukhmani Bisen.

7. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record as well as judgments relied upon.

8. In the present case, this Court has to decide, as to whether, against a final order passed by the Family Court, instead of filing criminal revision as provided under Section 19 of Act, 1984, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not.

9. Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 has filed case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for payment of maintenance, which was partly allowed vide order dated 03.03.2023. As both the parties are aggrieved by the said order, therefore, plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 has preferred Criminal Revision No. 3148 of 2023, whereas, defendant/applicant has preferred present Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the very same order.

10. Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd.(Supra).

11. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparently clear that undisputedly, Court may entertain application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but while entertaining the same it has to see as to whether, matter is civil in nature and is given cloak of criminal offence or there is gross miscarriage of justice or lack of jurisdiction. It has also been expressed by the Court that inherent jurisdiction under the se