A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.:

Heard Party-in-Person and learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the 1st respondent.

2. This Court, by orders dated 20.06.2016 in WPMP No. 23782 of 2016, ordered for impleadment of 2nd respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she filed Domestic Violence Case No. 9 of 2012 against her husband/2nd respondent on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B Nagar, R.R District. The Court below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, awarded an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner and Rs. 30,000/- per month towards maintenance against the husband/2nd respondent, by an order dated 09.12.2013 Aggrieved by the same, the husband/2nd respondent filed appeal before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, along with stay petition. Upon which, the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal by staying the execution of the order for realization of compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- upon furnishing third party security, within a period of two weeks thereafter. As regards the maintenance and costs are concerned, no stay was granted by the appellate Court. However, the 2nd respondent failed to pay the same. When the 2nd respondent had not attended the Court proceedings and failed to comply the orders dated 09.12.2013, Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the 2nd respondent by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.03.2014 in Crl.M.P No. 502 of 2014 in DVC No. 9 of 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition in SR No. 5624 under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act for revocation/impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent. But the said petition was returned on the ground that the said petition is not maintainable as Passports Act, 1967 (for short the Act of 1967) has no application to the domestic violence cases under DVC Act. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent bearing No. E 1293712 through letter dated 02.09.2014. The petitioner received letter dated 20.10.2014 from the Passport Office stating that Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 is an enabling provision and not a mandatory one and requested the petitioner to obtain orders from the competent court to impound the passport of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. On 20.06.2016, personal notice was ordered on the 2nd respondent and the Party-in-person filed memo dated 01.07.2016 stating that notice was taken to the address given by the 2nd respondent in the appeal i.e. Crl.M.P No. 64 of 2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 71 of 2014 filed by him before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. The petitioner also filed proof of service stating that delivery of the notice on the 2nd respondent was attempted and that the addressee/2nd respondent has P.O box.

5. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows:

27. Meaning of service by post. Where any 49 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

6. As per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, notice is deemed to be served on the 2nd respondent.

7. Party-in-person submits that when Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 14.03.2014 and same is pending, the 1st respondent, instead of revoking the passport of the