Sri. K.Raj Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) : HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.K.Raj Kumar, III Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC.V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 21 st day of APRIL , 2015

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . 499/2014

From which court this appeal is preferred The III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

Number of the case in that Court D.V.C. 174/2012

Number of the appeal Crl.Appeal.No. 499 of 2014

Name and description of the Appellant P.Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Yadi Reddy, Age: 33 Yrs, Occ: Nil, R/o.5-109, Nednur, Kandukur, R.R.District. Name and description of the Respondent 1) P.Aruna, W/o.P.Ravinder Reddy, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.9-1-364/B/8/1, Gandhi Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad.

2) P.Yadi Reddy, S/o.P.Bumi Reddy, Age: 65 Yrs, Occ: Nil.

3) P.Vijaya, W/o.P.Yadi Reddy, Age: 60 Yrs, Occ: Housewife. Both are R/o.5-109, Nednur, Kandukur, R.R.District.

4) The State of through, P.P.M.S.J., Hyderabad. The Sentence and law under which The III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is allowed the conviction was imposed in the lower petition filed by the Petitioner (wife) against her husband Court.seeking reliefs U/Ses.18,19,20 and 22 of DVC.Act, granting protection order as enshrined U/S.18(a) to (g) of DVC.Act and granting a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards residence and maintenance of P.W.1 and her two female children from the date of taking cognizance of the case on 6-9-2011 U/S.19, 20 of DVC.Act. The respondents 1 to 3 are further directed to return the dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 40 tolas of gold articles and other household articles given by the parents of P.W.1 to the respondents at the time of marraige within 2 months. Further R1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensatopm U/S.22 of DVC Act. The R.1 is hereby directed to comply the orders within two months against the order dated 13-05-2014 in D.V.C.174/2012. Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting reversed, if modified the Modification.aside the order of the lower court and the matter is remanded to the lower court and the lower court is directed to give opportunity to the respondents to cross examine PWs. 1 and 2.

DATE OF OR ON WHICH

Presentation24-5-2014 Filing24-5-2014 Notice issued by the Court26-5-2014 Bail bond if appellant is let out on bail -- Appellant is ordered to be appear26-5-2014 Hearing08/04/15 Judgment21-4-2015

This appeal coming on for final hearing before me, in the presence of M/S.J.Rajeswar, Advocate for Appellant/Respondent No.1 band

M/S.G.S.Reddy, Advocate for Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon perusing the petitions of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day, this court made the following:

-: J U D G M E N T :-

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order passed by III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 13.5.2014 in D.V.C.No. 174 of 2012.

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in this order as they are arrayed before the lower court.

3 Before the lower court the petitioner filed case under Domestic Violence

Act for monthly maintenance to her and to her two daughters and for return of dowry amount and for separate maintenance to her. Admittedly, the petitioner is wife of Respondent No.1. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of Respondent

No.1. It is also admitted that the petitioner along with her two children is living separately from Respondent No.1 because of some disputes. Before the lower court Respondent No.3 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 has not filed counter, but, Respondent No.1 engaged counsel and filed counter. Before the lower court because the respondents have not responded chief examination of P.W.1 was received by lower court as P.W.1. Through her Exs.P1 to P16 are marked. Father of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. But, the respondents did not choose to cross examine PWs. 1 and 2 and the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 was not challenged.

Hence, the lower court granted reliefs as prayed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed this appeal. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents requested this court to remand the matter to the lower court to give opportunity to the respondents to cross examine PWs. 1 and 2 because they are not cross examined before the lower court. In appeal grounds also it is one of the main grounds. Hence, in view of the circumstances and in view of the representation made by the counsel for the respondents, I feel that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the lower court for giving opportunity to the respondents to cross examine PWs. 1 and 2.

4 In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the lower court and the matter is remanded to the lower court and the lower court is directed to give opportunity to the respondents to cross examine PWs. 1 and 2.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court this the 21st day of April, 2015.

FAC.V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

( MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD