1. In this revision filed under S.397 read with S.401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner, who is the father of the 1st respondent herein, challenges Annexure-C order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in C.M.P. No.1526/2007.

2. When this revision came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable in view of S.401(4) Cr.P.C. read with S.399(2) Cr.P.C. since the impugned order is appealable under S.29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the PWDV Act" for short).

3. Advocate Sri. M. Balagovindan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, maintained that the revision is maintainable. In support of his stand, he made the following submissions before me:

S.29 of the PWDV Act, which confers the right of appeal, gives such a right of appeal only to the respondent and to "the aggrieved person" and to no other person and such appeal can evidently lie only from a final order. S.29 cannot be read along with S.24 of the Act as per which the Magistrate passing any order under the Act is to give free copy of the order not only to the parties to the application but to the police officer-in-charge of the police station concerned and to the service provider within the local limits of the Court and to a service provider who has registered a domestic incident report. The impugned order is an ad interim order passed under S.23(2) of the said Act. Unlike in the case of an interim order under S.23(1) of the Act, an ex parte order under S.23(2) can he passed only on an affidavit by an "aggrieved person" and such affidavit has to be filed in Form No.III of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules. 2006 ("the Rules" for short). When under S.12 of the Act the Magistrate can be approached not only by an aggrieved person hut also by a protection officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person, there can be an interim order in an application filed by a protection officer in which case he is not expected to file an affidavit in Form No.III of the Rules as enjoined by S.23(2) of the Act. Since the right of appeal is conferred only to "the aggrieved person" or "the respondent" and an aggrieved person as defined under S.2(a) of the Act can only mean a woman, who is or has been in a "domestic relationship" with the respondent, the Act does not contemplate an appeal against an order passed by the Magistrate on an application riled by a person other than an aggrieved person. Both the decisions rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sulochana & Anr. v. Kuttappan & Or., (2007 (2) KLT 1) and P.Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Valsala Chandran & Anr. (2007 (2) KLT 36) holding that all interim orders passed under the Act are appealable under S.29 of the Act, having been rendered without noticing this distinction and, therefore, require reconsideration. The statutory insistence of an affidavit by an aggrieved person is to pin her down to whatever has been stated in the affidavit and going by S.26(3) of the PWDV Act she has to disclose any relief which has been obtained by her in any proceedings other than a proceeding under the PWDV Act. In a civil suit instituted by the wife of the revision petitioner against the first respondent/applicant, an interim injunction has been obtained on the footing that the plaintiff therein is the owner of the house in question. She was hound to disclose the said fact in the application as well as in the affidavit. Since the revision petitioner, after entering appearance, had moved the Magistrate under S.25 of the Act for alteration of the order, he cannot be driven to the necessity of filing an appeal. The order referred to in S.29 of the Act can only be a final order and since the impugned order is not a final order, the revision petitioner cannot he asked to exhaust the remedy by way of appeal.

4. I am afraid that I canno