THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

1. Is the court of Magistrate while discharging functions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act") a criminal court inferior to the Court of Sessions and the High Court ?

Is the judgment of Court of Sessions in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Act amenable to the revisional power of the High Court under sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code")?

These questions are required to be answered in these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code by the respondents in M.C.No. 8 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery and M.C.No. 96 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Harippad.

2. In Crl.M.C. No. 969 of 2011 petitioners suffered an order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). That order was challenged in appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No. 29 of 2010. The order was confirmed. Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in Crl.M.C. No. 969 of 2011 .

3. In Crl.M.C.No. 1705 of 2011 petitioner suffered an order under Section 12 of the Act and that was challenged before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No. 244 of 2010. The Appeal was dismissed. Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in Crl.M.C.No. 1705 of 2011.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that proceeding before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Act except the provisions under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act which provide for punishment are civil in nature and that the Magistrate is to exercise power for providing maintenance, recovery of property, providing residence order and such other reliefs which are in the nature of a civil proceeding. In the circumstances, the Magistrate exercising power under the Act cannot be treated as a criminal court inferior to the Court of Sessions and the High Court. Hence it is argued that judgment of the Sessions Court confirming order of the Magistrate could be challenged in this Court only in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that as per the scheme of the Act though the Magistrate is required to exercise functions which are of a civil nature, character of the court does not change; it continues to be a court of the Magistrate which is a criminal court inferior to the Court of Sessions and the High Court. It is also contended that the very fact that Section 29 of the Act provides for an appeal to the 'Court of Sessions' would indicate that the Court of Magistrate while exercising power under the Act acts as a court inferior to the Court of Sessions. Further argument is that at any rate, what is under challenge in these proceedings are judgments of Court of Sessions which is a criminal court inferior to the High Court for the purpose of Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code. Hence the proper remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge judgment of the Court of Sessions invoking the revisional power of this Court under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code.

6. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act to decide the issue. In the preamble it is stated that the Act is to provide more effective protection to the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(i) of the Act defines ' Magistrate' as meaning a Judicial Officer of First Class or as the case may be the Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Code in the area where the aggrieved person resides temporarily or otherwise or the respondent resides or the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the procedure for obtaining reliefs. Section 12 of th