IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2084 of 2009() ------------------------------ MC.58/2007 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- BABY RAVEENA,AGED 11 YEARS, (MINOR-REP.BY HER FATHER GUARDIAN K.VENUGOPAL, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR (LATE),KANCHEERI HOUSE, CHANDANAKAVU,P.O.KURUMBATHUR,(VIA) THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT AND STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.SETHUMADHAVAN,S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, KIZHAKKELEVALAPPIL HOUSE,MANNIYAMPERUMBALAM, P.O.KUDALOOR,KUMBIDI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2084 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is preferred against the order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi in M.C.No.58 of 2007. Petitioner sought relief under Sec.12,18,19 and 20 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). Relief was sought in respect of a minor child. Respondents contested the application claiming that attempt of petitioner is to circumvent the previous of orders passed by the Family Court as confirmed by this court in respect of custody of the child. Learned magistrate dismissed the petition vide the impugned order and refused to grant relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel contented that since the petition is dismissed as not maintainable, only a revision would lie. 2. Sec.29 of the Act provides for an appeal against the order passed by the magistrate under the provisions of the Act. Learned magistrate entertained the petition, heard both sides and Crl.R.P.No.2084 of 2009 2 found on facts that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. It is accordingly that the petition was dismissed. After arguing on the maintainability of the revision for some time, learned counsel submitted that the revision petition may be permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal. Having regard to the provisions of Sec.29 of the Act and the right of the petitioner I am inclined to grant permission sought for. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order produced in this revision to the petitioner on request. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/