HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 1271 of 2009 Date: 05-12-2009 Between: P. Chakrapani and another Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor and others Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 1271 of 2009 ORDER: Heard. The main submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the impugned order is interim order against which an Appeal lie under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’), the Revision is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on AMIT SUNDRA v. SHEETAL KHANNA [1] and P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI v. VALSALA CHANDRAN AND ANOTHER [2]. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners are intending to prefer an Appeal and in the meanwhile, the interim order may be suspended in the interests of justice. In AMIT SUNDRA’s case (1 supra), the Delhi High Court observed that Section 29 of the Act provides for appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent. It is further observed that when specific remedy by way of appeal has been provided under the Act, it is clear that the Revision is not maintainable. Similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI’s case (2 supra). Since the legal position is not in dispute, the Revision Case is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the first petitioner herein to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the second respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the third respondent herein directly from the date of the order till the disposal of the main case. One of the directions is to provide residence to respondents 2 and 3 herein in flat No.S1, Indra Prastha Apartments, West Mumbalam, Chennai, from the date of the order. In the circumstances, in the interests of justice, there shall be interim suspension of the direction to provide residence to respondents 2 and 3 herein in flat No.S1, Indra Prastha Apartments, West Mumbalam, Chennai, for a period of two weeks from today. Subject to the above observation, the Revision Case is dismissed. _________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 05-12-2009 YCR [1] 2008 CRI.L.J. 66 [2] 2007 CRI.L.J. 2328