ORDER S. K. Kader, J. 1. This is an application filed by a husband who was the respondent in M.C. No. 47/77 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Adoor, to quash an order passed by the Court of Session, Quilon, dismissing Crl. R.P. No. 142/78 filed by him. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly assailed this order on the ground that this is a laconic order not giving any reason and that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which warrants dismissal of a revision application on the ground of default of either the party or the advocate appearing for him, without going into the merits of the case. The counsel argued that although the revision is a matter of favour and not a right conferred on a party and when once court has taken notice of the matter and the entire records were before it, it was the duty of the revisional court to peruse the records and pass appropriate orders. He also argued that there is no power vested in a criminal court to dismiss an appeal for default of the party or the advocate appearing for him and that the same principle should apply to revision petition also. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the first respondent justifying the order of dismissal submitted that it cannot be said that the court has no power to dismiss a revision or an appeal on the ground of absence of the petitioner or the appellant or the counsel appearing for them, although such an order will be illegal. The counsel also submitted that in this case it cannot be said that it is a case of dismissal for default; but it has to be presumed that this is an order passed on merits. The further argument advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent was that no useful purpose will be served by sending back this petition to the court below as the order passed by the magistrate on the main petition filed under S.125 Criminal Procedure Code awarding maintenance to the wife and minor child of the petitioner has become final. 4. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this petition can now be stated. 4. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this petition can now be stated. An application for maintenance was filed by the first respondent before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Adoor and the first respondent was examined and thereafter the case underwent a few adjournments. On one of these adjourned dates, i.e., on 9th August 1978, the petitioner herein was absent and he filed an application for adjournment of the case on the ground that he was sick. The Magistrate refused the prayer and dismissed his application as it was not supported by a medical certificate. Thereafter an ex parte order was passed awarding maintenance to the wife and the minor child. The petitioner filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him on 19th August 1978. According to the petitioner, this application was dismissed directing him to pay costs of Rs. 250 and against this order he filed Crl. R. P. No. 142/78 before the Court of Session, Quilon which, as stated earlier, was dismissed. 5. But at the time of hearing it was not disputed that the application filed by him for setting aside the ex parte order was allowed on condition that he paid a cost of Rs. 250. The petitioner without paying the costs filed the criminal revision petition referred to above. It is also not disputed that thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Court of Session, Quilon, challenging the order passed in the main application filed under S.125 Criminal Procedure Code and this petition was dismissed on 23rd July 1979 and the same has now become final. 6. There is considerable force in the contention of the counsel for petitioner that the order impugned is not a speaking order and that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissing a revision petition on the only ground that the petitioner or his advocate was absent. It is clear from a perusal of the order that the dismissal of the revision petition was not on merits but only on the ground of the failure of the petitioner and his counsel to be present in court on the date on which the petition was called. This is not a dismissal in limine of the revision where by the court refused to call for records and look into the same. This is not a dismissal in limine of the revision where by the court refused to call for records and look into the same. This is also not a case where the court came to the conclusion apparent on the grounds of revision or on the face of the order or judgment sought to be revised, that the case has no merit and does not call for exercise of any of its powers. Whether it is an appellate court or revisional court, it is the primary and paramount duty of that court to decide the appeal or revision coming up before it. No doubt, in deciding the appeal or revision in exercise of its discretion, it may choose which of its powers it will exercise if the circumstances of the case call for such exercise. A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground that the appellant or his advocate was absent; as the appellate court when it entertains the appeal and issues notice, is expected to peruse the records in the appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits. This is clear from the salutary provisions in S.386 Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the powers of an appellate court. Although revision is not a right and is only a matter of favour, when once a revision has been entertained and notice issued by a court, it is its duty to peruse the available records and pass appropriate orders on merits. The order impugned in this case is not a speaking order and is illegal and improper inasmuch as there is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure enabling a revisional court to dismiss a revision petition on the ground that the revision petitioner or his advocate was absent. It follows from the above that the order under attack has to be interfered with. 7. The further question is whether, in the light of the facts and circumstances referred to above, by sending back the case directing the Court of Session to restore the revision to its file and dispose it of afresh, any useful purpose will be served. Admittedly the order of maintenance has become final and therefore by allowing this petition and setting aside the order challenged, no useful purpose will be served. Subject to the above observations, this petition is dismissed.