(1.) C.R.R. 405 of 2008 and C.R.R. 2074 of 2008 are taken up together as a common question of Law is involved in both the revisional applications. The common question of Law that has arisen in both the revisional applications is whether a revision is lies against an order passed by the Trial Court under section 23 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in High Court where the Act is silent conspicuously about the scope of revision and there is provision of appeal only against an order passed under the Act.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with the question of maintainability raised by the Bar, it would be expedient to state the factual background of both the revisional applications.
(3.) IN C.R.R. 405 of 2008 the O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of this revisional application taken out by the four petitioners under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. IN C.R.R. 2074 of 2008, Sujoy Dass, the sole opposite party, has challenged the maintainability of the revisional application taken out by his wife, Paromita Dass, under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia.