A revision against the appellate order passed by the Sessions Court in a domestic violence case is maintainable under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure code.

JUDGMENT

1. The 2nd respondent in the Criminal Petition is the wife of the 1st petitioner/respondent. The 2nd respondent herein filed Domestic Violence Case No.7 of 2014 that she was subjected to domestic violence by all the respondents in D.V.C case and prayed to return Rs.10, 00, 000.00 Rs.10, 00, 000.00 and 50 tulas of gold considered to be Sridhana given as dowry to the petitioners/respondents; to allow her into house of the 1 st petitioner/respondent on par with her husband; to pay an amount of Rs.6000.00 towards rent; not to commit further domestic violence; and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10, 000.00 per month for unreunionment of life of the 2nd respondent.

2. On receiving notices from the Court, the respondents in Domestic Violence Case, have made their appearance and later they have remained exparte. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Anantapuramu, was constrained to allow the D.V.C. No.7/2014, as prayed for by an order dtd. 27/12/2016.

3. Assailing the said order in D.V.C. No.7 of 2014, dtd. 27/12/2016, the respondents in the DVC who are petitioners herein have filed Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, under Sec. 29 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the Act'). Learned Judge by an order dtd. 14/11/2018 has dismissed the appeal as the 1st respondent failed to comply with the order of payment of maintenance and also failed to comply with the directions of this Hon'ble High Court divulging that the petitioners/respondents are not entitled to play hide and seek game and they are bound to obey the orders of the Court before questioning the legality of the orders passed by the trial Court.

4. The instant Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings vide order dtd. 27/12/2016 in D.V.C. No.7/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Anantapuramu, on the ground that the trial Court has passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity and the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the contentions of the petitioners/respondents and in DVC, the Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction without any substantial material or proof. The petitioners 2 to 6 herein nothing to do with the affairs between the 1st petitioner in the Criminal Petition and the 2nd respondent, since they are residing separately. On the aforesaid grounds it is implored to quash the proceedings in DVC No.7 of 2014.

5. As seen from the order in DVC No.7 of 2014, the petitioners herein who are respondents therein have remained exparte. The lower appellate Court conferred by the statute under Sec. 29 of the Act, has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners/respondents herein have not complied with the directions of the trial Court.

6. Against an order passed by the Court of Sessions under Sec. 29 of the Act, whether a revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable before the High Court?

7. There is no provision in the Act as to what action can be taken against an appellate order passed by the Sessions Court and there is no specific bar to prefer revision against such an order keeping in view of the provision of Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 28 of the Act.

8. As against this, the very question was examined by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor (A.P.) v. L. Ramayya: 1974 SCC OnLine AP 180 = (1975) Criminal Law Journal 144). held in the following which is verbatim extracted here under:

From what was discussed the following 'conclusions would follow:

(1) Where, by statute, matters are referred to the determination of a Court with no further provision, the necessary implication is that the Court will determine the matters as a court. Its jurisdiction is enlarged with all the incidents of such jurisdiction.

(2) Where a person is indicated not by name but by official designation the