RUPA PAUL Vs. TAPASH DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, filed under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. praying for revision of judgment & order, dated 21.06.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala in connection with Misc. Case No. 350/2010 under Section 125 of CrPC. The petition was filed, on 08.06.2012 and notice was directed against the respondent but the respondent has chosen to remain absent on receipt of notice. Office note, dated 04.09.2012, shows that the notice has been duly served on the respondent. Order dated 23.08.2012, passed by this Court, shows that an attempt shall be made to hear the entire matter, on the returnable date and hence the case is taken up for hearing.

(2.) At the very inception, learned counsel, Mr. Das Choudhury submits that mistakenly he has presented the petitions under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. but the petition ought to be one under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's act and for fair ends of justice, learned counsel prays for converting it to a petition under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

(3.) The order, challenged in the revisional application, has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala and hence to challenge the order one has to make the application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The revisional application under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. would apply, had the order been passed by a Magistrate in exercise of power as vested under Criminal Procedure Code. Since the impugned order has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, and the petitioner preferred the revisional application before this Court directly, hence the prayer to convert it as an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is allowed and the petition is accordingly converted.