- (1.) Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Manoj Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 70 of 2012, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Smt. Suman Devi Vs. Raju Singh Yadav and others) and impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre), Ballia in Criminal Misc. Application No. 46 of 2013 (Raju Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia had passed an ex-parte order dated 06.11.2012 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the revisionists, which is against the settled principles of law. It is further contended that the appellate court has also erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionists on the ground of limitation without considering the merit of the case. It is also submitted that the revisionists are living separately and they have no concern either direct or indirect with the opposite party no. 2 and her husband. It is next submitted that the revisionists had no knowledge about the ex-parte order and the said fact came into knowledge when the Police of Police Station Kasimabad, Ghazipur reached at the house of the revisionists to serve the copy of the order dated 06.11.2012 for making payment of monetary relief.;