The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative viable and efficacious remedy is available, such as filing an appeal as per the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Criminal Revision Petition may not be maintainable.

1. The Petitioner/Respondent (Husband) has focused the instant Criminal Revision petition as against the impugned order of Distress Warrant dated 23/4/2012 in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, while passing the impugned order in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 dated 23/4/2012 has observed that “Petitioner is present. Respondent absent. Filed petition and allowed. Earlier order of substantial payment not complied by Respondent. Both side heard. Revision hearing. But no stay on perusal of records the Court takes that respondent. Purposely avoided for substantial payment. Hence issue Distress Warrant against the respondent” and directed the matter to be called on 16/6/2012.

3. Assailing the correctness of the order so passed in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, the Revision Petitioner/Husband as an aggrieved person has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi should have seen that C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 (filed by the First Respondent/Wife under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is not maintainable to execute the order of maintenance passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as if the said order and claim in M.C.No.5 of 2009 has been passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that to execute the order of maintenance passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, there is an enabling provision under Section 20 (6) of the said Act and further, no relief can be granted in the said petition which has not been filed under Section 20 (6) of the Act. As such the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2012 dated 11/6/2012 directing the issuance of Distress Warrant against the Revision Petitioner/Husband is irregular, illegal, abuse of power and exercised contrary to Law.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband submits that in the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner/Husband against the order of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, no stay has been granted and when the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court/District Court, then issuance of Distress Warrant by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 is illegal and clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.

7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners (Wife and Children) that the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi in Cr.M.P.No.4065 of 2009 on 29/7/2009 has passed interim orders to the effect that the Revision Petitioner/Husband should not cause any hindrance to the Respondents/Petitioners (Wife and Children) to reside in the Revision Petitioner's house and granted the protection of residence orders.

8. Further, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi has directed the Revision Petitioner to pay an interim relief of maintenance of Rs.1,500/-to the Respondents/Petitioners Food, Clothing, Medical and Children expenses and the same has to be paid by the Revision Petitioner on or before 5th of every month (directly to be paid in the house). Also, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, directed the Office to take Cr.M.P.No.4065 of 2009 as M.C.No.5 of 2009 on file and posted the matter to 20/8/2009.

9. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi on 18/6/2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 has passed orders in favour of the Respondents (Wife and Children) by directing the Revision Petitioner/Husband not to cause any threatening act or harass them and further granted Residence Protection Orders in favour of the Respondents and also granted Rs.