1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3 and Smt. S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of IV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad, dated 27.11.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.203 of 2015 in D.V.C.No.57 of 2013, whereunder he has set aside order dismissing the DVC for non prosecution and restored the D.V.C.

3. The facts relevant to consider the issue are as under:

Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents of husband of respondent no.4, and petitioner No.3 is daughter of petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.375 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging committing of crime under Section 498-A of I.P.C. With the assistance of Protection Officer, respondent No.4 filed complaint dated 28.01.2013 with respondent No.2 under ‘the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ (for short, ‘the Act’) alleging domestic violence. On the same day, the Protection Officer referred the complaint to IV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad. With the assistance and verification of protection officer, she filed application in Form II under Rule 6(1) praying to grant reliefs under various provisions of the Act. The learned Magistrate has taken the same on file and registered as D.V.C.No.57 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Act for reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. Petitioners in the Writ Petition are arrayed as respondents 2 to 4. The said D.V.C. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.07.2014. Respondent No.4 filed Crl.M.P.No.203 of 2015 praying to restore the D.V.C. and to hear the same on merits. By the order impugned, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and restored D.V.C.

4. The issue for consideration is, whether the decision of learned Magistrate to allow the petition filed by respondent No.4 for restoration of D.V.C., dismissed for non-prosecution is valid ?

5.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the petition for restoration is moved under Section 25(2) of the Act. The said Section is not applicable for restoration of case dismissed for non-prosecution. It only deals with duration and alteration of orders already made. According to learned counsel, against a decision in D.V.C. an appeal is maintainable under Section 29 of the Act to the Court of Sessions within 30 days. Respondent No.4 failed to avail the remedy provided by Section 29 of the Act and statutory period expired long ago and therefore the petition filed before the Magistrate’s Court was not maintainable. After expiry of the limitation period available to prefer appeal, no such petition could have been entertained. Learned counsel would submit that with reference to adjudication of matters arising under the Act, provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable. According to Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, once final order is passed disposing of a case, the Court cannot alter or review the decision except clerical or arithmetical error. As this provision is applicable to the cases under the Act, once a decision is made, the Court becomes functus officio and has no competence to deal with the application including petition for restoration. In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance on provision in Section 28 of the Act.

5.2. According to learned counsel, respondent No.4 did not approach IV Metropolitan Magistrate with clean hands. The reasons assigned in support of the petition to restore the case are not germane to genuine circumstances in which respondent No.4 could not attend to the Court when the case was dismissed, assuming that the learned Magistrate has competence to deal with such petition. According to learned counsel, only reason assigned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed