REVN.659-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 659 OF 2009 Ajay Jamnadas Choksi ...Applicant Vs. Mrs. Lata Ajay Choksi @ Lata Shantilal Hirani & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mrs. Pratima Joshi & Ninad Ranade, for the Applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20-8-2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, who was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal, passed by the learned Magistrate, on the complaint filed by the respondent-wife, and thereafter was pleased to remand the matter with a direction to the learned Magistrate to frame point for determination which are enumerated in the operative order. 2. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate had only framed REVN.659-09 - 2 - one point and all the points which are mentioned in the operative part of the order were not considered by the trial Court and therefore, there was no necessity of remanding the matter back for de-nova trial. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the impugned order. It appears that a composite complaint was filed by the respondent under S. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. One of the reliefs claimed by respondent No.1 was use and enjoyment of the shared household, and other averments were on the point of physical and mental torture by the applicants therein. The learned Magistrate framed only one issue i.e. “whether it is proved that conduct of the applicants therein constituted a domestic violence under S. 3 of the said Act?” 3. In my view, the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and remanding the matter back to the trial Court, since the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind while framing an issue and concentrated only on a point of application of physical and mental torture. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for allowing the application. In my view, no interference in the impugned order is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 401 of Cr.P.C. Criminal revision application is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]