SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
MOHAMMED ARSHAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 371 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.A.AJITH KUMAR, SMT.K.MEKHA DINESH
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN, SMT.TEENA CHERIAN, SMT.PREETHI. P.V., SMT.MARY LIYA SABU, SMT.AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN, SHRI.NEERAJ KRISHNA KUMAR, SHRI.ARAVIND K.

Revision petitions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are not maintainable if the aggrieved party can appeal the orders.

Headnote:The judgment deals with the Criminal Revision Petition stemming from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner seeks the revision of orders from the Magistrate's Court, which are appealable under Section 29 of said Act. The court finds that the petition is not maintainable due to the option of appeal available to the petitioner against these orders. Thus, the petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. review of lower court ruling under the dv act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. jurisdiction limited by prior provisions. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the common order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, in C.M.P.Nos.196/2024 and 2947/2024 on 10.03.2025. Both the orders are passed by the learned Magistrate as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), which are appealable under Section 29 of the said Act.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to be invoked to set aside the aforesaid orders.

3. Going by the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 , it is not possible for this Court to entertain the revision, when the aggrieved person is having the option to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. Since the petitioner is having the option to take recourse to Section 29 of the Act, against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the present petition is apparently not maintainable before this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top