Kaja Moideen vs Aysha on 21 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2718 of 2009()


1. KAJA MOIDEEN, S/O.M.A.JABBAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AYSHA, W/O.KAJA MOIDEEN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/08/2009

 O R D E R
                          THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
                    ----------------------------------------
                        Crl.R.P.No.2718 of 2009
                    ---------------------------------------
                 Dated this 21st day of August 2009

                                   ORDER

This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-2, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.No.203 of 2005 arising from the

order of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor in M.C.No.54

of 2004. Learned magistrate directed petitioner to pay a total sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- under section 3(i) of the Muslim Woman (Protection of

Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Petitioner, aggrieved by that order

challenged the same in revision before learned Sessions Judge

invoking the revisional jurisdiction of that court under section 379 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is against the order in revision that

petitioner has filed this revision. The jurisdiction of the Sessions court

and High court in revision are concurrent. Hence, in view of section

399(3) of the Code a second revision in this court at the instance of

petitioner who filed the revision petition in the Sessions Court is not

maintainable. Petitioner if aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions

Judge in revision has to file a Crl.M.C case under section 482 of the

Code.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner

may be permitted to withdraw the revision. Considering the above

facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow the request.

Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn

Crl.R.P.No.2718 of 2009 2

without prejudice to the right if any of petitioner to file appropriate

petition under section 482 of the Code. Registry shall return the

impugned order to the petitioner on application.

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/