IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2287 of 2006 VIKASH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAMBILASH CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KOLHUBAR, P.S. DUMARIA, DISTRICT-GAYA. ……………………………………PETITIONER….PETITIONER. Versus 1. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF VIKASH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, DAUGHTER OF RAM PRASAD CHAUDHARY, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE-RAMPUR, P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTRICT-GAYA. …………….OPPOSITE PARTY…OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1. 2. DILIP YADAV, SON OF RAMCHANDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SRIRAMPUR, P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTRICT-GAYA. .........OPPOSITE PARTY..OPPOSITE PARTY(PERFORMA). --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rashid Izhar, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : M/s. Sudama Singh and Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocates. --------- 7. 28.1.2010. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions as contained in Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and its interpretation by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Chouhan Vs. Bhuneshwar Chouhan reported in 2009(4) BBCJ 442, this Civil Revision would not be maintainable but that cannot create a bar in challenging the impugned order in a writ petition under - 2 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy, if available to the petitioner under law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties raises no objection to the same. As a result , this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)