ORDER : S.N. SATYANARAYAN, J. 1. The complainant in C.C. No.709/2009 (P.C. No.527/2007) on the file of JMFC., III Court, Belagavi, has come up in this revision petition impugning the order dated 24.03.2010 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.325/2010. 2. The brief facts leading to this second revision petition are as under: 2.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rank before this Court. 2.2 The petitioner is the father-in-law and respondent is his daughter-in-law i.e, the wife of the petitioner's son Mr. Santosh Kangralkar. The records would indicate that the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner's son, Mr. Sanotsh Kangralkar, took place on 17.02.2002 at Shahapur, Belagavi. Admittedly, at the time of marriage, the petitioner's son was working as a Technical/Scientific Officer in E.C.I.L, a Government of India Enterprise, at Hyderabad. After the marriage, it is stated that the petitioner's son and the respondent had set up their matrimonial house in Hyderabad for sometime and thereafter, differences arose between them resulting in the separation of the parties and each one is living separately. 2.3. When the matter stood thus, the respondent has filed a petition seeking maintenance in Crl.Misc. No.75/2004 before the Family Court, Belagavi. The petitioner's son has filed petition in O.P. No.466/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, for the relief of decree of divorce under Section 13(1-a) and (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent has filed another petition in M.C. No.36/2005 on the file of Family Court, Belagavi, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petition for decree of divorce was filed by the petitioner's son initially at Hyderabad and subsequently, on the petition filed by the respondent before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, seeking transfer of the proceedings, the same was transferred to the Family Court, Belagavi, and it is now numbered as M.C. No. 117/2007. 2.4. In the meanwhile, the respondent learnt that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner herein and his family members to search a bride to get Mr. Santosh Kangralkar, married for the second time. 2.4. In the meanwhile, the respondent learnt that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner herein and his family members to search a bride to get Mr. Santosh Kangralkar, married for the second time. Since matrimonial disputes between the respondent and petitioner's son were pending consideration before the Family Court, she got published a public notice on 11.05.2007 in 'Tarun Bharat', Marathi daily newspaper, having wide circulation in Belagavi, intimating the general public that the marriage between Mr. Santosh Kangralkar and the respondent is still subsisting and they should not enter into marriage with him as the same would be illegal and amount to an offence of bigamy. 2.5 The publication of the said notice was taken seriously as defamation of the petitioner and he has filed a private complaint numbered as 527/2007 under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the respondent on the file of JMFC., III Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that on account of respondent's adamant attitude, there was discord between his son, Mr. Santosh Kangralkar, and the respondent and subsequently, she has deserted his son and during the pendency of matrimonial disputes between his son and the respondent before the Family Court, Belagavi, she has issued the said public notice making false allegations against the petitioner and his family with an intention to defame and bring disrepute to them. 2.6 The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, who is petitioner herein and his witnesses, has ordered for registration of the criminal case in C.C. No.709/2009 against the accused - respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504 of the IPC and issuance of summons to her returnable by 04.07.2009. On 04.07.2009, since summons issued to accused - respondent herein was not returned, summons was ordered to be reissued to her. On 04.07.2009, since summons issued to accused - respondent herein was not returned, summons was ordered to be reissued to her. 2.7 After service of summons, the accused-respondent herein has preferred revision petition in Crl.R.P. No.325/2010 before the IV additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, impugning the order dated 04.07.2009 in C.C. No.709/2009 on the file of JMFC., Belagavi, on the premise that the public notice was got issued by her with a view to protect her right as wife of Santosh Kangralkar and to ensure that he would not get into second marriage and the same was not with an intention to defame the petitioner or his family. 2.8. It is seen that in the said revision petition, after service of notice, respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) has entered appearance. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 24.03.2010, has held that the contents of the public notice dated 11.05.2007 did not contain any defamatory material against the petitioner or his family so as to attract the provisions of Sections 500 and 504 of the IPC, and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused in P.C. No.527/2007 and registering the same as CC No.709/2009 and accordingly, the order dated 04.07.2009 reissuing summons to the accused-respondent herein for the said offences was set aside and consequently, proceedings were quashed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 3. This revision petition was admitted by order dated 11.06.2010. Accordingly, lower court records are secured in this matter. Hence, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. On going through the material available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the respondent. The fact that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner's son, Mr. Santosh Kangralkar, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the relationship between the respondent and her husband has strained and there are matrimonial disputes between them, which are subject matter of several proceedings, one under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance; another under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and one more under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage, all pending before the Family Court, Belagavi. 5. 5. When the matter stood thus, it is seen that the respondent herein guided by the rumour that her husband is contracting second marriage, has taken precaution in publishing a public notice in 'Tarun Bharat', Marathi daily newspaper, having wide circulation in Belagavi, where her husband and his family members are residing, to make known to the general public that the marriage between herself and Mr.Santosh Kangralkar is still subsisting and any attempt on their part to enter into marriage with him would be detrimental to the interest of the parties, which appears to be perfectly in order. There is no defamatory material or insulting words used against the petitioner or his family members in the said notice so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 500 and 504 of IPC. The finding of the lower revision Court that the petitioner herein has not made out any case to proceed against the respondent herein for the said offences appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this Court find that the question of considering this second revision petition to set aside the impugned order does not arise. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.