THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7697 of 2009 DATED:22.09.2009 Between: Thirsi Srinivas and others .. Petitioners And Thirsi Saritha and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri G.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. The impugned order which is sought to be questioned under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial in D.V.C.No.52 of 2007 on 27.10.2007 in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act. The impugned order shows that after recording its reasons for concluding that there was sufficient service of notices of the proceedings on the respondents, the trial Court proceeded ex parte to consider the request made in the case on the evidence of the first petitioner as PW.1 and her father as PW.2 apart from Ex.P1 document. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition granting the various reliefs specified in the order. The petitioners come up with the present Criminal Petition stating that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority and is therefore void and they also raised, on merits, various grounds as to why the various reliefs could not have been granted. They were conscious of the fact that an appeal was provided against such an order under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the time for which had expired long back before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground of the order being without jurisdiction and without authority. Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that there shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or on the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later and when there is a specific statutory remedy, taking recourse to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be permissible. Section 482 applies only when orders are necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent the abuse of process of any law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. If the petitioners failed to avail the statutory remedy provided to them against the impugned order, a challenge to the said order cannot be considered to prevent an abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice, apart from the impugned order being not an order under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself. The inherent powers could not have been invoked contrary to a specific statutory provision and therefore the present Criminal Petition does not appear sustainable. It is true that Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or any of the Rules under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 do not provide for entertainment of an appeal under Section 29 after the expiry of the period of thirty days, but it should be noted that under Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the proceedings under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 and the offence under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the appeal provided to the Court of Session by invoking Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also appears to be regulated by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and if the petitioners have any scope for approaching the Court of Session with an appeal at this distance of time under any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it may be open for them to do so or it may also be open to them to invoke the extraordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court, if the impugned order were to be considered to be without any jurisdiction and lawful authority and is void, but without expressing any opinion on any such alternative courses of action available to the petitioners, insofar as this petition is concerned, as inherent powers cannot be invoked in opposition to a specific statutory provision, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September 2009 KH