The importance of providing an opportunity of hearing and allowing the parties to contest the case before passing final orders.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Brundaban Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Debendranath Pradhan, learned counsel for the opp. party.

2. The petitioners have challenged the final order dated 21.07.2014 of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack passed in Crl. M. C. No. 30 of 2014 (Tr. No. 1600 of 2014) in an application under section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter the ‘P.W.D.V. Act’) which was filed by the opp.party Smt. Madhusmita Behera in directing the petitioners, inter alia, to allow the opp. party to live in her in-laws’ house and the petitioners were prohibited from restraining her there from or in alternative, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-(rupees one thousand) per month to the opp.party towards the house rent under section 19 of the P.W.D.V. Act and Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand) per month to the opp.party towards her maintenance under section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015 in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack who vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal, hence the revision.

3. The impugned order of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack reveals that since in spite of receipt of the notice, the petitioners did not take any step in the case, they were set ex parte on 12.04.2014 and the case was accordingly adjudicated in their absence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Brundaban Rout submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below suffers from non-application of mind and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioners to contest the case and there was no valid service of notice on the petitioners and if an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners to file their show cause and to contest the proceeding, they can satisfy the Court that the opp. party is not entitled to get any relief under the P.W.D.V. Act against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the opp. party Mr. Debendranath Pradhan on the other hand opposed the submission and contended that since in spite of the receipt of the notice, the petitioners did not appear and contest the proceeding, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in passing the impugned order and granting relief under sections 19 & 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act and the Sessions Judge, Cuttack has also not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal.

6. It appears that as per the order of the learned Magistrate, since the opp.party is not residing in her in-laws house, she is entitled to get Rs.3,000/-(rupees three thousand) per month i.e. Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand) towards the house rent and Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand) towards maintenance. Thus, as per the order of the learned Magistrate till date, the opp. party is entitled to get Rs.93,000/-(rupees ninety three thousand). It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the order dated 03.10.2016 passed in Misc. Case No.1004 of 2016, Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) has already been deposited by the petitioners before the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack and the same has been disbursed to the opp. party.

7. Learned counsel for the opp. party does not dispute such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.43,000/-(rupees forty three thousand) as per the order of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack and they have also no objection if the amount is disbursed in favour of the opp. party but the petitioners may be provided an opportunity to file their show cause and contest the case.

9. Learned counsel for the opp. party has no serious objection to such submission.

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, in the interest of justice and fair play, it is directed that if the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.43,000