VEERAMANI RAO Vs. J.S.GAYATRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent as a complainant had instituted a petition against the present petitioners arraying them as respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous No.410/2012, in the Court of learned II Addl.Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkamagaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'). The said petition was filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'D.V.Act'), inter alia for the relief of returning of domestic utility articles, silver and gold articles, furnishings said to be belonging to the petitioner therein and which were alleged to have been left in the house of the respondents therein. She has also sought for a compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the mental and physical agony said to have been inculcated to her by the respondents therein.

(2.) After recording that the respondents refused to accept the notice, the trial Court proceeded in the matter and partly allowed the petition vide its order dtd. 20/7/2012, wherein the Protection Officer was directed to get back all the domestic utilities along with gold and silver articles to the petitioner before it within a month from the said date. A sum of Rs.10,000.00 was also ordered to be paid as compensation towards the mental agony said to have been given by the respondents to the petitioner therein.

(3.) Challenging the said order dtd. 20/7/2012, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.222/2013 in the Court of learned II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), however, with a delay of one year. Seeking condonation of this delay of one year, the appellants (petitioners herein) filed an I.A. under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The said I.A. was numbered as I.A.No.I. The Sessions Judge's Court took up the said I.A. for its disposal. The appellant/applicant led his evidence on the said I.A. The Sessions Judge's Court vide its order dtd. 4/12/2013, rejected the said I.A. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants before it also came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellants in the Sessions Judge's Court have filed this revision petition.