ASHISH Vs. SHAHURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. By consent heard finally.

(2.) The petitioners are the minor children of the respondent. They had applied for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure but, the learned Magistrate after holding an inquiry dismissed the said application. The petitioners approached the Court of Sessions in revision but, the revisional Court also decided against them. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

(3.) Though a number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not necessary to go into the same in view of the fact that the revision application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed without hearing their Advocate. This is not in dispute and is evident from the observations made in para No. 7 of the order passed by the Revisional Court itself. Though in the revisional proceedings none of the parties can have a right to be heard since the counsel for the respondent was heard, by the Revisional Court and since the learned counsel for the petitioners was not heard, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to keep their counsel present and to make submissions through him, in support of revision application. In view of this, the matter is being remanded back to the Court of Sessions.