Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) The criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in separate criminal appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 3.11.2011 passed by the Gram Nayayalay Court, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') on an application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005'). The appellate court dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 3.11.2011 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court directed the petitioners to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of INR 1500/- to the respondent.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration the fact that the summons issued to the petitioners in the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 has has never been served upon the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were not provided opportunity to present their case before the trial court. It is contended that in absence of proper service of summons upon the petitioners, ex-parte proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 3.11.2011 is also liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has illegally rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Kishore Chugh v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2013] 2 Crimes (HC) 252.;