ORDER:

The short question that fell for consideration in this revision petition is whether a petition filed on under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, before a Family Court can be permitted to be amended as a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

filed under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act=.

2. The respondents herein originally filed petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, >HAMA?) vide O.P.No.1236 of 2014, against the revision petitioner for maintenance. As the revision petitioner contested the petition on the ground that the provisions of HAMA are not applicable to community of the schedule tribes unless a notification issued by the Central Government is published in the official Gazette as required under Section 2(2) of the HAMA, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.966 of 2019 to amend the provision of law of the petition in O.P.No.1236 of 2014 from Section 18 of HAMA to Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. The petition in I.A.No.966 of 2019 was opposed on the ground that the civil case cannot be converted as a criminal case by amending the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The Family Court passed the Order as follows:

Section 7 of Family Courts Act. Since all the proceedings on the file of Family Court are being governed by the Family Courts Act, I find substance in the petitioner?s contention. Accordingly, the point is answered.=

4. In spite of service of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have not made appearance.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

6. Section 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the HAMA read as under:

<2. Application of Act.―(1) This Act applies― (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

Explanation.―The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:― (a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion; (b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; any child, legitimate or illegitimate, who has been abandoned both by his father and mother or whose parentage is not known and who in either case is brought up as a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh; and (c) any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.=

7. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that by virtue of Section 2 (2) of HAMA., proceeding under Section 18 of HAMA is not maintainable between the parties herein as there is no notification said to have been issued under Section 2 (2) of HAMA. Therefore, the only question to be answered is whether the amendment permitted by the trial Court is sustainable.

8. Leaned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a civil proceeding cannot be converted into criminal proceeding by adopting provision under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC.

9. Normally, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are maintainable before a Judicial First Class Magistrate as per