MUSTT. SABNAM BEGUM Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Crl. Appeal No. 2 (1) of 2014 upholding the judgment and order dated 21.01.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dibrugarh in C.R. Case No.99C of 2012.

(2.) Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for and on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. G.Alam, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 wife of petitioner No. 5 preferred an application on 3.4.2012 u/s 12 read with Sections 18/19/20/22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of learned CJM, Dibrugarh which was registered as C.R. Case No. 99C/2012 against the present petitioners claiming relief for (i) Protection order u/s 18 of DV Act, 2005 (ii) Residence Order under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 from petitioner No. 5 (iii) direct for return of articles u/s 19 (8) of the said Act (iv) Monetary Relief under Section 20 of the said Act, claiming Rs. 15,000/- per month from the petitioner No. 5 and (v) compensation order under Section 22 of Dowry Prevention Act, 2005 claiming Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner No. 5 (iv) Cost of proceedings of Rs. 20,000/- under the said Act.The further case of the petitioners is that the said C.R. Case 99C/2012 was proceeded ex-parte against petitioners on the pretext that summons were duly served on the petitioners at Varanasi,Uttar Pradesh.The learned Magistrate after hearing the respondent No.2 and presuming her contention to be correct was pleased to give the relief as sought for by her vide judgment dated 21.01.2013.