THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7485 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the Additional public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to respondent Nos.2 to 5 as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The grievance of the petitioners is that XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is not dispensing with the presence of the petitioners on the dates of hearing in D.V.C. No.3 of 2009 on his file, though the proceedings in a domestic violence case are civil in nature and though the petitioners have engaged a counsel to represent them on their behalf before the Court. Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’ for brevity) lays down the procedure in Sub-Section (1) thereof to be followed in proceedings under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 as well as offences under Section 31 and it is mandated that they shall be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C. Admittedly Sub-Section (2) of Section 28 of the Act gives liberty to the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under Section 23(2) of the Act. The petitioners have to therefore make an appropriate request to the learned Magistrate concerning any relief they require in tune with the provisions of Section 28 of the Act and so long as the trial Court did not violate any provision or principle of law, there can be no intervention by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners claims that more particularly petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being pardahnashin ladies, are suffering a lot of inconvenience in being compelled to attend on all dates of adjournment. If an appropriate request is made in accordance with law, there is no reason to suspect that the trial Court will not consider the same keeping in view such circumstances. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as unsustainable. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 16th September, 2009 GHN