The main legal point established is that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides specific provisions for ex parte orders, alteration of orders, and the right to appeal, and these provisions override general remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. The petitioner/First Respondent/First Accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.12.2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 in C.C. No. 55 of 2011 (now renumbered as Crl. M.P. No. 5 of 2012) passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul, while passing the orders in Crl. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 (filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the Ex parte order dated 10.2.2011, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011) on 14.12.2011, has inter alia observed that as per Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an Appeal has to be preferred within 30 days to the Court of Sessions and that the present Petition has been filed after lapse of 30 days i.e. on 18.4.2011 (from the date of passing of the order i.e. on 10.2.2011) and inasmuch as the Appeal is to be preferred to the Court of Sessions as per Section 29 of the Act and also that no proper explanation/reason has not been assigned for filing of the Petition and as such, the said petition is not liable to be accepted and resultantly, dismissed the application without cost.

3. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 in Cr. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 has been passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in violation of Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. The Learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the interim order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 in C.C. No. 55 of 2011 on 10.2.2011 is only an ex parte order and furthermore, no reason has been assigned by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing the said order.

5. Added further, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner that an ex parte order dated 10.02.2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 in C.C. No. 55 of 2011 passed as per Section 23(2) of the Act can be altered, modified or revoked by the concerned Court, based on an application from the aggrieved party, as per Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. Finally, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 has been passed without taking into consideration the necessary averments made by the Petitioner and in any event, the award of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- ordered by the Trial Court is an excessive and arbitrary in the eye of law.

7. The Learned counsel for the revision petitioner cites the decision of this Court in Alexander Sambath Abner v. Miron Lada and Others 2010 (1) L.W. Crl. 93 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 790 , wherein, it is held as follows:

“Neither Section 25(2) excludes the right of the party under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to prefer an appeal nor Section 29 prevents the party from seeking the remedy under Section 25(2) of the said Act. At the same time for invoking provision under Section 25(2) , there must be a change in the circumstance after the order being passed”.

“When a party was not heard in earlier circumstance, but subsequently heard, it could be considered as a change of circumstance. Therefore an ex parte order passed under Section 23(2) could be altered, modified or revoked by the same Court on an application from the aggrieved person under Section 25(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005)”.

8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the respondent/Wife (petitioner) that the respondent as petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 before the Trial Court under Section 23(2) of the Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for monthly relief from the revision petitioner for the period from October 2009 and the Trial C