THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :3697 of 2010 DATED: 19-02-2010 Between: Smt.Ziya Begum ( previous name Jaysri). ..... PETITIONER And The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, MHA, South Block, New Delhi & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner herein filed DVC.No.5719 of 2008 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). As the petitioner and her son are unable to maintain themselves, they filed DVC.M.P.No.1062 of 2009 seeking interim maintenance as provided for under Section 23 of the Act. Having considered the said application, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, being satisfied that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain herself, awarded maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month to be paid by the unofficial respondent herein. As the same was not paid, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent for not passing any orders to recover the amount of maintenance amounting to Rs.5000/- per month w.e.f. 10-07-2009 in accordance to petitioner representation, dated 10-11-2009 based on the order dated 10-07-2009 passed by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate, as highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and direct the 2nd respondent to pay arrears with interest @ 24% per annum and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. None appeared for the 4th respondent. 3. In my considered view, this Writ Petition is misconceived. 4. Section 23 of the Act deals with power to grant interim and ex parte orders. Similarly Section 20 of the Act deals with monetary relief. 5. In my considered view, the said grant of interim maintenance ex parte falls within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act. 6. Sub-Section 6 of Section 20 of the Act deals with the failure on the part of the respondent and it reads thus: “Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub- Section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent”. 7. From the above provision of law, it is clear that the petitioner has a right to approach the very same Court and file an application as provided for under sub-Section 6 of Section 20 of the Act complaining failure by the respondent. As and when such a complaint is made, the Court below, in my considered view, should pass appropriate orders. However, petitioner has chosen to file the present Writ Petition, which according to me is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and file an application as provided for under the provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 19th February, 2010. Tsy