IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1912 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1912 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1912 OF 2008. Mrs. Rimpal Sanjay Parekh. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1913 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1913 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1913 OF 2008. Mrs. Rimpal Sanjay Parekh. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.H.H.Ponda, i/b. Apporv Singh, for the Applicant. Mrs. Manjula Rao, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent No.1. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The challenge in these two applications is to the orders passed by the Sessions Court on 7th June 2008 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.153/2008 and 154/2008 filed by the second Respondent. The challenge is on the ground that the Revision Applications were not maintainable in view of the provision of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The only issue to be decided in these Applications is whether the Revision Applications were maintainable before the Sessions Court under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. As stated above, there were two Criminal : 2 : 2 : 2 : Revision Applications filed by the second Respondent for challenging interim orders passed by the learned Magistrate under section 23 of the said Act of 2005. The interim orders under section 23 of the said Act of 2005 were sought to be challenged by filing Revision Applications under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under section 29 of the said Act of 2005, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of the said Act of 2005 can be challenged by preferring an Appeal. In the circumstances, the Sessions Court could not have entertained the Revision Applications and granted stay. 4. It must be stated here that on 17th June 2008, this Court issued notice recording its prima-facie opinion that Revision Applications were not maintainable. This Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of pryaer clauses (e) and (f). 5. On 17th July 2008, when these Applications came up on board, following order has been passed :- " The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs.60,000/- drawn in favour of M/s. Johari Nursing Home. The said cheque has been issued for making advance payment towards the charges of the surgery which the child is required to : 3 : 3 : 3 : undergo. The cheque is received by the learned counsel for the applicant and he states that the cheque will be immediately deposited with the concerned hospital. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent states that the 2nd respondent will directly pay the professional fees and other charges relating to the surgery. Stand over till 22nd July 2008 high on board." As per the said order, necessary steps have been taken by the parties. It is obvious that the 2nd respondent will be bound by the statement recorded in paragraph no.2 above. 6. These Applications will have to be allowed only on the ground that the Revision Applications filed by the second Respondent are not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned orders dated 7th June 2008 and in Criminal Revision Applications Nos.153 and 154 of 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Court are quashed and set aside as the Revision Applications are not maintainable. : 4 : 4 : 4 : (2) It is made clear that it will be open for the second Respondent to adopt appropriate proceedings for challenging the orders which were impugned by filing Criminal Revision Applications. (3) All contentions of the second Respondent and the Applicant as regards the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are expressly kept open. (4) The Applications are partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (5) If any amount is deposited by the second Respondent with this Court, the same shall be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court. (6) Parties and the concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S. OKA, J.] A.S. OKA, J.] A.S. OKA, J.]