IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 28 of 2007() --------------------------- OP.41/2001 OF FAMILY COURT, TRICHUR. ................................ REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------------- ALIMON, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KADER CHALIL, KADAPRAM AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.HAREENDRAN SRI.T.H.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------- 1. NAFEESA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, PAMBINEZHUTH, ANJANGADI DESOM, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. ANSAR, AGED 14 YEARS,(MINOR), S/O.FIRST PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER NAFEESA, NOW BECOME MAJOR DO. DO. ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON 02/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------. R.P.F.C. No.28 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Family Court ,Thrissur in OP.4/2001. It is not an order passed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits the party to file revision before the court . It is in the form of a Civil Proceeding where the appropriate remedy may be an appeal. I am not going to consider on merits since the revision petition is not maintainable. I dismiss this revision petition with the observation, it will not debar the party from filing appropriate applications for redressal of the grievances before the appropriate forum and if possible the delay caused may be viewed sympathetically when such matters come up for consideration. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.