B.V.KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent in the Criminal Petition is the wife of the 1st petitioner/respondent. The 2nd respondent herein filed Domestic Violence Case No.7 of 2014 that she was subjected to domestic violence by all the respondents in D.V.C case and prayed to return Rs.10,00,000.00 Rs.10,00,000.00 and 50 tulas of gold considered to be Sridhana given as dowry to the petitioners/respondents; to allow her into house of the 1 st petitioner/respondent on par with her husband; to pay an amount of Rs.6000.00 towards rent; not to commit further domestic violence; and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000.00 per month for unreunionment of life of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) On receiving notices from the Court, the respondents in Domestic Violence Case, have made their appearance and later they have remained exparte. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Anantapuramu, was constrained to allow the D.V.C. No.7/2014, as prayed for by an order dtd. 27/12/2016.

(3.) Assailing the said order in D.V.C. No.7 of 2014, dtd. 27/12/2016, the respondents in the DVC who are petitioners herein have filed Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, under Sec. 29 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the Act'). Learned Judge by an order dtd. 14/11/2018 has dismissed the appeal as the 1st respondent failed to comply with the order of payment of maintenance and also failed to comply with the directions of this Hon'ble High Court divulging that the petitioners/respondents are not entitled to play hide and seek game and they are bound to obey the orders of the Court before questioning the legality of the orders passed by the trial Court.