(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order dated 06.11.08 made in Crl.A.No.225 of 2007 on the file of the V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1185 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 06.11.08 made in Crl.A.No.225 of 2007 on the file of the V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.)

1. Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dr. D.V.Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 appears through virtual mode.

2. In presence of both sides this matter is taken up for hearing. It appears that the instant Criminal Revision Case was filed against order dated 06.11.2008 made in Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2007 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Appellate Court has set aside an order passed by the learned Trial Court in DVC. No.11 of 2007.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submit that though this Court has directed the petitioner to serve personal notice but he has not received any personal notice. It has taken note that the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 regularly appearing before this Court in virtual mode and he is aware about the fixed date for hearing of this matter. This matter is listed for hearing, no counter was either prayed for by the respondent No.1 or ever been filed. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Brief facts of the matter is that the present appellant is the wife of the respondent No.1 who filed an application before the learned Trial Court under section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On the prayer for the appellant, the learned Trial Court has allowed the said DVC case by directing respondents therein to provide reliefs to wife as follows:

                  1) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month towards the maintenance as per Section 20(d) of Domestic Violence Act, to the petitioner from the date of this order.

                  2) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to cause any sort of violence towards the petitioner as per Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

                  3) The petitioner has no own house and no shelter and at present she is residing in her parents house. Hence, respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards payment of rent for the purpose of her shelter and the above said amounts should be paid on or before 10th of every month.

5. Husband/present respondent, being aggrieved filed an appeal. Learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and is of the view that the application filed by the women does not contain any prayer of protection order, residence order or the monetary relief. It is the view of the learned Appellate Court that the learned Trial Court has committed error by passing the order of maintenance as well as other protection order in absence of any specific prayer. On that reason the appeal was allowed by the order impugned and the order passed by the learned Trial Court in DVC No.11 of 2007 was turndown.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant placed on record of DVC case and submits that the application for seeking protection by the married women/appellant contains separate Form as per provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; each and every form has some specific prayer. He submits the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the said forms. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there are long standing matrimonial disputes between the present petitioner as well as her husband resulting different litigations including other maintenance cases. Previously, the present petitioner was receiving maintenance in terms of Order of M.C.No.200 of 2003 from the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the said monthly maintenance was enhanced in M.C.No.89 of 2009 in the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month. If in the present case any order of maintenance would pass, then the appellant would be double benefited which cause injustice to the respondent No.1.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I peruse the Trial Court record. It appears that the application of the appellant before the learned Trial Court contain separate Form as enumerated under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Form-2 contains specific application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said Forms contains specific prayer regarding protection order, order for residence, monetary relief etc., In my view, the learned Appellate Court was not concentrated over the entire petitions and case record, only over viewed written application of the present petitioner and passed impugned order.

9. It further appears that the application of the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court contain all the Forms and specified under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which contains specific prayer. Thus, the observation of the learned Appellate Court appears to be illegal and improper.

10. However, it has been specifically argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the present petitioner is receiving Rs.3,500/- per month regularly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the fact. Accordingly, it appears that the order of monetary relief as per section 20(d) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in favour of the petitioner is not required at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application for enhancement of that order of maintenance if so advised. However, it appears that the order of learned Trial Court in respect of 2nd and 3rd reliefs is reasonable. Thus, those reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get.

11. Under the above observations, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

12. The impugned order of Appellate Court is here by set aside.

13. The petitioner is entitled to get 2nd and 3rd reliefs as per order of the learned Trial Court in DVC.No.11 of 2007.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.