This revision has been preferred under section 397 Cr.P.C. by the wife of Saravanan/first respondent and also against certain others who are related to the petitioner by her marriage to the first respondent.

2. Petitioner/wife instituted M.C. No. 2 of 2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode seeking several reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'D.V. Act'). It was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 02.02.2016.

3. Aggrieved, instead of filing an appeal to the next appellate Court, she preferred this revision.

4. The question is whether this revision can be entertained when the appeal remedy is provided under Section 29 of the D.V. Act.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dismissed the Maintenance case by an erroneous order throwing open the rudimentary principles relating to domestic problems. In passing the impugned order, the salient provisions of D.V. Act has not been adverted to and the order lacks non observance of general basic principles of law. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitio