1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2008 Mrs. Zainab Jawed Razi. ... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ..... Respondents. -: ALONG WITH :- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 301 OF 2008 Mrs. Zainab Jawed Razi. ... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ..... Respondents. Mr. R. A. Lokhande for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP, for the State. Mr. Mandar Gosami for the Union of India. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.: Considered the averments made in the applications of the petitioners 2 for early hearing of the writ petition. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection. Accordingly, both the applications of the petitioners for early hearing are allowed and by consent, both the writ petitions are taken up and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the the learned Counsel for the parties and in our opinion both the writ petitions can be disposed of at this stage. . 3. Writ Petition No.10 of 2008 was filed against the Order of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge having entertained the revision against an order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing a notice in an application filed before him under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the notice which was issued by the learned Magistrate was quashed by the learned Sessions Judge. While entertaining the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 10 of 2008 this Court stayed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, which resulted in restoration of the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. Now, we are told that the Magistrate has finally disposed of the matter by an order dated 16th April, 2008. Therefore, this Writ Petition No. 10 of 2008 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 4. The order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate 3 has been challenged by another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1114 of 2008 perhaps under the misrepresentation that one writ petition is already pending in this Court. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is appellable under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The remedy of appeal is statutory and is more comprehensive than the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition No.1114 of 2008 is dismissed. 5. The appeal should have been filed by the petitioner within a period of one month of the service of the order. But she took remedy of filing this writ petition, therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, we allow the petitioner to file appeal against the order of the Magistrate dated 16th April, 2008 before the Sessions Court within a period of two weeks from today. If, an appeal is, accordingly, filed before the Sessions Judge, he shall not be influenced by the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the earlier round of litigation and shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, both the Applications being Application Nos. 300 of 2008 and 301 of 2008 are disposed of. Rule issued in Writ Petition No. 10 of 2008 stands discharged. Both the Writ Petitions being Writ 4 Petition Nos. 10 of 2008 and 1114 of 2008 stand disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.)