1. The petitioner-wife, being aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court - V at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1335/2014 confirming the order dated 1.12.2014 passed in Crl. Misc.No.28/2012 on I.A. by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-VI, Bengaluru City, prefers the above revision petition against the respondent- husband on the grounds that:

The impugned judgment and order are contrary to law, procedure and materials on record. Under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the PWDV Act'), the Magistrate is not vested with the power of granting custody to the respondent. The Sessions Court ought not to have passed the impugned order as welfare of the child is at paramount consideration. It has not appreciated the fact that the child was abducted by the respondent and that he had kept the child away from the petitioner for over two years and the respondent cannot be allowed to benefit from his own fault. The Superior Court of California has also observed that the respondent kept the child away from the mother intentionally. The Sessions Court ought to have seen that the entire dispute between the