IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 RPFC.No. 130 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.524/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE M.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- SUBHA.R.S., D/O.SOBHANAKUMARY, SOBHA NIVAS, OTTAKKAL.P.O., OTTAKKAL CHERRY, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER IN THE M.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- SUBHASH.S., S/O.RATNAMMA, KURUMBELIL VEETTIL, NEAR KALANJOOR TEMPLE, KALANJOOR.P.O., KALANJOOR MURI, KALANJOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-689 694. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.130 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is directed against the dismissal of a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for default on her nonappearance on the hearing date fixed for the petition. 2. Notice given to the respondent, but, after service he has elected to remain absent 3. The learned counsel, adverting to the pendency of a Mat. Appeal arising from an O.P filed by the same petitioner as against her husband, which too is stated to have been dismissed for default, urged for annulling the order impugned in the revision petition so as to have an opportunity to prosecute her claim for maintenance, or in the alternative to pursue at least steps for mediation and effect a settlement. From the submissions made by the counsel, it appears, that pursuant to settlement talks between the parties, out of court, some terms of compromise were settled. Thereafter, on the further hearing date fixed for the case, the petitioner in the present proceedings, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remained absent and consequently the petition was dismissed. The dismissal of the aforesaid petition was R.P.(F.C) No.130 OF 2011 - 2 - sought to be set aside moving an application with a petition to condone delay of 386 days in taking appropriate steps thereof. No provision of law has been brought to my notice enabling the Magistrate to restore the M.C case filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been dismissed for default. So far as an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether it be on merits or by way of dismissal for default, the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure interdicting the Magistrate from varying that order would apply with full force. When such be the case, even assuming that there was sufficient reason for the petitioner otherwise than by way of impeaching that order as provided by law, restoration could not have been canvassed for. Such being the position, I find, there is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE