IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2718 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRRP.203/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD MC.54/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- KAJA MOIDEEN, S/O.M.A.JABBAR, THANKAYAM, POKKUNNI, VADAVANNUR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SMT.M.ARCHANA RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. AYSHA, W/O.KAJA MOIDEEN, VANDITHAVALAM, PERUMATTI, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON 21/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2718 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.No.203 of 2005 arising from the order of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor in M.C.No.54 of 2004. Learned magistrate directed petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 3(i) of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Petitioner, aggrieved by that order challenged the same in revision before learned Sessions Judge invoking the revisional jurisdiction of that court under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is against the order in revision that petitioner has filed this revision. The jurisdiction of the Sessions court and High court in revision are concurrent. Hence, in view of section 399(3) of the Code a second revision in this court at the instance of petitioner who filed the revision petition in the Sessions Court is not maintainable. Petitioner if aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge in revision has to file a Crl.M.C case under section 482 of the Code. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision. Considering the above facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn Crl.R.P.No.2718 of 2009 2 without prejudice to the right if any of petitioner to file appropriate petition under section 482 of the Code. Registry shall return the impugned order to the petitioner on application. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/