(1) CRI. WP. 303.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 303 OF 2010 Isar S/o Abdul Gaffar Qureshi .. Petitioner VERSUS Farida Begum W/o Syed Ameen .. Respondent ... Mr. R.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned Advocate. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Parbhani allowed Misc. Application no. 373 of 2003 filed by the respondent under section 3 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Learned Magistrate awarded the lumpsum amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, the amount for iddat period and costs in favour of the respondent. The present applicant preferred Revision Application no. 95 of 2007 which came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Advocate would submit that the grant of huge amount is impermissible because the (2) CRI. WP. 303.2010 respondent is a school teacher. He would further submit that the Revision Application was not maintainable and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I am not impressed by the contention of the learned Advocate. The petitioner himself has filed Revision Application, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So now he is estopped from saying that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction. In fact, there does not appear any jurisdictional error committed by the Court of Sessions. It is true that the respondent is a school teacher. The petitioner is, however, a Police Constable and earns sufficient income. 4. In any case, without there being any perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this Court will not entertain the Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp