- (1.) H. K. Rathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22-7-1996 Annexure 7 of petition passed by the Judge Family Court, Azamgarh and order dated 25-9-1995 and 21- 10-1995 annexures 3 and 5 of this petition passed by Respondent No. 2.
(2.) 1 have heard Shri K. K. Tripathi, for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A. None appeared for opposite party No. 3 at the time of hearing and therefore, could not be heard. The facts of the case are simple. The petitioner moved an application under Section 126, Cr. P. C. against Op posite party No. 3, that application was rejected by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 26-9- 1995 Annexure 3 of the peti tion in default for non- appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for set ting aside the said order which was rejected by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 21-10-1995 Annexure 5. The petitioner against that order preferred a Criminal Revision No. 402/95 which was rejected by order dated 22-7-1996 by Respondent No. 1 vide Annexure 7 of the writ petition. No main tenance was awarded to the petitioner, therefore, she had moved this application for quashing of these orders. The order rejecting application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. He also rejected the application for restoration. Against that order the revision was, there fore, maintainable before the Sessions Judge and not before the Judge Family Court.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he preferred a Revision before the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, but on crea tion of the Court of Judge of Family Court, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the revision to the Court of Family Judge. THE record of the case had also been summoned which supported the contention. The Judge Family Court can exer cise only the powers mentioned in Family Court Act, he cannot exercise the powers of Sessions Judge. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was not authorised to transfer the revision for hearing to the Judge Family Court who was not competent to hear the revision. The Judge Family Court also erred in deciding the revision. He has no jurisdiction to decide the revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. against an order of Magistrate.;