Judgment : Petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to Crl.R.P.No.11 of 1990 on the file of Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai and set aside the order dated 8. 1990 passed in it. 2. Short facts are: The respondents have filed petition for maintenance under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. against the petitioner. That petition was allowed awarding maintenance of Rs.200 each to respon-dents 1 and 2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.11 of 1990 before the Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai. On 8. 1990, no representation was made for the petitioner and petitioner was absent and so the criminal revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, has come forward with this petition. 3. Mr.Vijayakumari Natarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submitthat revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge under Secs.397 and 399, Crl.P.C. and that even if the petitioner and his counsel were absent, the learned Sessions Judge cannot dismiss it on the ground that they were absent, but should go into the merits of the case and decide it and that the impugned order is clearly wrong and against the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relied upon Verghese v. Devasia, 1981 K.L.T. 541. In that case, the matter came up before the learned single Judge in the following manner: The Executive First Class Magistrate, Alleppey, had passed an order under Sec.145, Crl.P.C. The legality and propriety of this order was challenged by No.1 of the ‘A’ party before the Sessions Judge. On the date on which the criminal revision case came up for hearing, the revision petitioner and his advocate were absent and the court dismissed the petition in limine. That order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court The learned Judge had set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and sent the proceedings back to the file of Sessions Judge for disposal afresh in accordance with law. In this judgment, the learned Judge has stated as follows: “On examination of such record, the Sessions Judge may exercise his powers of revision consistent with the provisions of Secs. 398 and 399 of the Code. In this judgment, the learned Judge has stated as follows: “On examination of such record, the Sessions Judge may exercise his powers of revision consistent with the provisions of Secs. 398 and 399 of the Code. These provisions will show that the power of revision is a power to call for and examine the record of the proceedings of an inferior court. Once the Sessions Judge decides to call for the record of any such proceeding for the purpose of examining the same with a view to satisfy himself regarding its correctness, legality or propriety or irregularity he has the further duty to examine the record. He can examine the record for this purpose without insisting on the presence of a party, the counsel or the prosecutor..... Whether party or counsel is present or not and whether he addresses arguments or not, court has the duty to examine the record. That duty cannot be abdicated on the ground that the party or counsel is absent......There cannot be a dismissal for default of a criminal revision petition.” With respect, I am in entire agreement with the view of the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Taking that view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 1990 has to be necessarily set aside. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 1990 on the file of Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Sessions Judge, Sivaganga for disposal of the revision petition afresh in accordance with law.