IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1230 of 2009 Deonandan Choudhary, son of late Badri Chaudhary, resident of village-Durgapur, Gaushala (Lakri Gola), P.S. and District-Katihar. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kunti Devi, wife of Devnandan Chaudhary, resident of village-Samsi Bampat, P.S.-Rotuwa, District- Maldah. ……..Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 16.09.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in Misc. Case No.4/2009 by which the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from 400/-per month to 1000/-per month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Kunti Devi, opposite party no.2 had filed Maintenance Case No.83/1990 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.400/-per month vide order dated 18.02.1994 by Sri L.S.Kushwaha, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, 2 Katihar. The petitioner has never failed to comply the aforesaid order till date. On 17.01.2009, opposite party no.2 filed Misc. Case No.4/09 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar praying therein to increase the amount of maintenance, which had been granted in Maintenance Case No.83/90 due to rise in prices of the goods. This petition was filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the previous order for maintenance was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, hence, a petition Section 127 Cr.P.C. should have been filed before the learned Magistrate; and the Principal Judge, Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. so far this case is concerned. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shanta Bai reported in 2002 (3) CRI. L. J. 2894. It appears that the jurisdiction of Family Court has been given under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 7 (2) 3 reads thus : “Subject to the other provisions of this Act, A Family Court shall also have and exercise- (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment. Previously, the Magistrate of the 1st Class had been given the power to exercise the power under Chapter IX of the Code. Admittedly, the Family Court is in existence in the district of Katihar which has been the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to the Section 8- Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings:- Where a Family Court has been established for any area- (a)xxxxxx (b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (i) which is pending immediately before 4 the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before such Family Court if, before the date on which such sit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. In the case of Raj Kumar (Supra), the fact is that one Mst. Shanta Bai, wife of the Raj Kumar filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan on 22.02.1996. The husband filed reply. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan by order dated 11.03.1998 awarded maintenance to the wife to the tune of Rs.250/-per month for herself and Rs.150/-each per month for her two children totaling Rs.550/-per month w.e.f.6.03.1998. Aggrieved by that order, the wife preferred revision before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh for enhancement of maintenance as according to her maintenance allowance awarded to her by order dated 6.03.1998 was not proper and sufficient. The learned 5 Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh by his judgment dated 14.06.2000 accepted that revision filed by the respondent wife and modified the order dated 11.03.1998 to the extent that the respondent wife was awarded Rs.400/-per month in place of Rs.250/-per month and the two children were awarded Rs.250/-per month in place of Rs.150/-per month. In that case, it was held that the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance has to be filed before the Magistrate, who has passed first order of maintenance. With due respect, in my opinion, this decision is not helpful to the petitioner. After the establishment of Family Court, the jurisdiction of maintenance under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. has been vested in the Family Court, which has passed the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)