THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13559 of 2011
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in DVC.No.113 of 2011 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent No.1/complainant against the petitioners/accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
2. Despite several opportunities there was no representation from the counsel for the petitioner. Again on 09.04.2021, when the matter came up for hearing, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, hence this Court had no other alternative matter but to pass orders on merits based on material available on record, by reserving the matter for passing orders.
3. An ex parte interim order dated 16.07.2011 was passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CR.M.P.No.824 of 2011 in DVC.No.113 of 2011 granting Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein towards her educational expenses and other necessities besides Rs.1,000/- already granted by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRL.RC.No.469 of 2003 vide order dated 22.03.2011.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied on a decision of this Court in GIDUTHURI KESARI v. STATE OF TELANGANA1 to canvass that quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the proceedings in DVC matters, is not maintainable. 1 2015 (2) ALD CRL. 470 = 2016 (1) ALT CRL. 358 2
5. In the instant case, though the petitioners seek for quashment of proceedings in DVC.No.113 of 2011, as a matter of fact, an ex parte order dated 16.07.2011 is passed by the Court below. If any order is passed in the present criminal petition, it would amount to quashment of ex parte order also. However, the petitioners did not choose to seek any relief to set aside the ex parte interim order either as the main relief in the criminal petition or as a consequential relief. As a procedural propriety, it would not be appropriate that the ex parte order passed by the DVC Court is allowed to be challenged by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is squarely covered by the judgment supra. Moreover, the petitioners have got alternative remedy under the DVC Act to challenge the ex parte order of maintenance passed by the DVC Court.
In view of the above, the criminal petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedies as may be available under the DVC Act. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 23, 2021 DSK