IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1127 of 2009 SMT.RICHA @ RICHA SINHA, Wife of Sri Mrinal Madhup. Daughter of Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, Resident of New Area Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad …… Petitioner Versus SRI MRINAL MADHUP, Son of Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha, resident of 104, Saket Galaxy, Anandpuri, Boring Road, P. S. Sri Krishnapuri, Town and District Patna …. Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner: M/S A.K.Singh Tarun, Krishna Sinha Sangita Sharma, Advocates For the O.P. : M/S Shashi Anugrah Narain, Sr. Advocate A.P.Jittu and Binod Kumar, Advocates --------- 6 25.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the specific bar created by Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as well as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Chouhan Vs. Bhuneshwar Chouhan & anr. [2009(3) PLJR 931], this civil revision may not be maintainable. However, it is submitted that neither the bar created by Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act nor the proviso to Section 115(1) of C.P.C. can take away the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by following a properly constituted writ petition under 2 Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675 and also another decision of the Supreme Court in Sipra Bhattacharyya v. Dr. Apares Bhattacharyya [(2009) 4 SCC 366]. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application to avail any other remedy available under law including under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the above view of the matter, the Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)