2025:KER:26752 Crl.R.P.No.556/2017 -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 556 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2016 IN CRL.A NO.388 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2014 IN MC NO.81 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ANEES.A, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. A.MEERA SAHIB, 14 PALMGRKOOVE VILLAS, BATHANI,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PAZHAYAVEETTIL, NEAR TRANSPORT BUS STAND, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.K.C.KIRAN SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 IREM IRSHAD D/O. IRSHAD AHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, AL-WASEELA, GRA 442, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 003. 2 ARYA D/O. IREM IRSHAD,MINOR 6 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SREEJITH S. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26752 Crl.R.P.No.556/2017 -:2:- O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. The main challenge raised in this petition is that there cannot be an appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The legal position in the above regard is settled by the decision of this Court in Shani v. Muhammed Kunju & Others [2024 (7) KHC 209]. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the parties concerned may not be put to hardships due to the wrong legal advice given by their counsel. Thus, it is submitted that, this Criminal revision petition may be disposed of, leaving open the right of the respondents to prefer a revision before the competent Court. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents in the above regard, has to be accepted. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as follows: (i) The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, in Crl.A.No.388/2014, stands set aside. 2025:KER:26752 Crl.R.P.No.556/2017 -:3:- (ii) It is made clear that the aforesaid order setting aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal, would no way affect the right of the respondents herein, to seek appropriate legal recourse as against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, on 24.09.2014 in M.C.No.81/2012. (Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE DST/28.03.25