Bombay High Court
Shaikh Asif S/O. Abdul Hamid vs Mahejabeen W/O. Asif Shaikh And ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
(1) crast244.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 244 OF
2019
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2666 OF 2019
SHAIKH ASIF S/O. ABDUL HAMID
VERSUS
MAHEJABEEN W/O. ASIF SHAIKH AND OTHERS
Mr. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant
CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J.
DATE : 13-01-2021
P. C.
. The applicant has preferred this revision application
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
applicant has challenged the order dated 28-02-2019, passed by
the Family Court, Latur in Petition No. E-74 of 2018. By the
impugned order the respondent has been ordered the maintenance
@ Rs. 3,000/- [Rupees Three Thousand] to the original petitioner
No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] to the original
petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
2. The Family Court Act, 1984 has been enacted to provide
for establishment of family court for speedy disposal of matrimonial
disputes. Section 7 of the said Act provides for jurisdiction of family
court. Section 8 of the said Act provides for exclusion of jurisdiction
1 of 3
(2) crast244.19
of courts other than the family court to be deal with subject matter
of the proceeding amenable to jurisdiction of family court. Section
19 of the said Act provides for remedy by way of appeals and
revisions to an aggrieved party from every judgment or order
(except interlocutory order) passed by the family court to the High
Court. Section 19(4) of said Act expressly provides remedy by way
of revision against the order passed by the family court in exercise
of jurisdiction under Chapter-IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 19(5) expressly provides that no other appeal or revision
shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a
family court. The appeal filed under Section 19 to be heard by the
bench consisting of two or more judges. Thus, Section 19(1)
provides the remedy of appeal to an aggrieved party against the
order passed by the family court. Section 19(4) provides remedy by
way of revision to an aggrieved party against the order passed
under Chapter-IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure except the
interlocutory order.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant that the revision application filed under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order is
maintainable before this court i.e. single judge assigned to hear the
criminal revision application. It is contended that though the order
has been passed by the family court, but same has been passed in
exercise of powers of magistrate under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and in that view the revision application is maintainable
2 of 3
(3) crast244.19
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this
court. In support of the submission learned counsel has referred the
decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Satyabhama Vs Rama
Chandran reported in I (1998) DMC 148.
4. It appears that the Registry has not examined the issue
in respect of maintainability of criminal revision application under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before placing the
matter. Since there is a specific remedy provided under Section
19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, to file the revision petition
ought to have been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court
Act.
5. In view of above, it is necessary for Registry to examine
the maintainability of revision petition under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and further to examine as to whether
the revision petition is to be heard by this court or any other.
6. The Registrar (Judicial) is requested to examine and
submit the report.
7. Stand over to 15-01-2021. High on board.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ]
VishalK/crast244.19
3 of 3
