- (1.) THE petitioner/First Respondent/First Accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.12.2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 in C.C. No. 55 of 2011 (now renumbered as Crl. M.P. No. 5 of 2012) passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul.
(2.) THE Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul, while passing the orders in Crl. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 (filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the Ex parte order dated 10.2.2011, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011) on 14.12.2011, has inter alia observed that as per Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an Appeal has to be preferred within 30 days to the Court of Sessions and that the present Petition has been filed after lapse of 30 days i.e. on 18.4.2011 (from the date of passing of the order i.e. on 10.2.2011) and inasmuch as the Appeal is to be preferred to the Court of Sessions as per Section 29 of the Act and also that no proper explanation/reason has not been assigned for filing of the Petition and as such, the said petition is not liable to be accepted and resultantly, dismissed the application without cost. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 in Cr. M.P. No. 2669 of 2011 has been passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in violation of Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(3.) THE Learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the interim order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court in Crl. M.P. No. 957 of 2011 in C.C. No. 55 of 2011 on 10.2.2011 is only an ex parte order and furthermore, no reason has been assigned by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing the said order.;