(1.) Heard Mr. Brundaban Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Debendranath Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite party.
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the final order dated 21.07.2014 of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack passed in Crl. M.C. No. 30 of 2014 (Tr. No. 1600 of 2014) in an application under section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter the 'P.W.D.V. Act') which was filed by the Opposite party Smt. Madhusmita Behera in directing the petitioners, inter alia, to allow the Opposite party to live in her in-laws' house and the petitioners were prohibited from restraining her there from or in alternative, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 1,000.00(rupees one thousand) per month to the Opposite party towards the house rent under section 19 of the P.W.D.V. Act and Rs.2,000.00(rupees two thousand) per month to the Opposite party towards her maintenance under section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015 in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack who vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal, hence the revision.
(3.) The impugned order of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack reveals that since in spite of receipt of the notice, the petitioners did not take any step in the case, they were set ex parte on 12.04.2014 and the case was accordingly adjudicated in their absence.