IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.2243 of 2009 Between: Kalakota Komaraiah .. Petitioner AND Kalakota Neela and 4 others .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the direction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial in FAC Luxiettipet in Crl.M.P.No.632 of 2008 in DVC.No.4 of 2008, dated 08-09-2008 by which the learned Magistrate directed the 2nd respondent therein to stop payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1st respondent therein until further orders of the Court pending determination of main domestic violence case. The petitioner challenged the said order in this criminal petition contending that the domestic violence case was filed alleging the 1st respondent herein to be the second wife and the 2nd respondent herein to be the daughter of the petitioner and seeking protection under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, monetary relief of Rs.3,000/- per month and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from return of stridhana property worth Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner further stated that all the allegations of the 1st respondent herein were denied in his detailed counter denying even the relationship with the 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner and further denying any acts of domestic violence making him liable for any reliefs in the domestic violence case. In the domestic violence case, the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to him and without giving any opportunity of hearing and the terminal benefits, which the petitioner has to get on retirement as an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, could not have been the subject of any such orders in the prima facie absence of any relationship between the parties and the absence of any oral or documentary evidence in support of the claims. Heard Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M. Radhika, learned counsel representing Sri P. Panduranga Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent-employer of the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor/4th respondent. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with? Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel, initially invited attention to the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibit any attachment of such terminal benefits and contended that withholding of Rs.2,00,000/- from the provident fund amount payable to the petitioner is illegal and unjust. The question whether the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be read into the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not the subject of consideration of any precedent so far and the power to grant an interim ex parte order under Section 23 of the special statute being subject to such limitations placed on the Civil Court acting in execution of a decree can be left open to be determined in an appropriate case. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the fact remains that at the time of issuing notice before admission on 8-4-2009, no interim stay or suspension of the order in question has been granted and the prohibitory direction continued to be in force from 8-4-2009 up-to- date. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the employer of the petitioner that all the terminal benefits have been paid to the petitioner as the employer was not a party to the Domestic Violence Case or the order in question. But Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that still Rs.2,00,000/- were withheld from his provident fund by virtue of this order. There is no need to go into the truth or otherwise of these allegations in this enquiry for consideration of the legality of the prohibitory order passed by the Court under the special statute. The impugned order states that as the petitioner herein was likely to receive huge amounts towards his retirement benefits, the payment of which makes it difficult to the 1st respondent herein to recover the amounts due from him, the Court passed the order. The order cannot be considered ex facie to be without jurisdiction and it will be in the interests of justice not to enter into any controversy about the questions of fact in this limited enquiry, but, direct the trial Court to dispose of the main Domestic Violence Case itself within a specified time frame so that the party, who ultimately succeeds on merits in the Domestic Violence Case, has the benefit of the impugned order at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxiettipet, is directed to dispose of DVC.No.4 of 2008 on its file on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, at any rate within three (3) months from the date of communication of this order to that Court. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-11-2011 Ksn