JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. – Petitioners in this case assail the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Criminal Revision No.36 of 2010 confirming the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh in C.M.C. NO.20 of 2010. 2. The short undisputed facts of the case are that the present opposite party filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity, against the present petitioners and two others i.e. her husband and father-in-law seeking relief under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. Petitioner No.1 happens to be brother of the husband of the petitioner, while petitioner No.2 and 3 are her sisters-in-law. The petitioners were noticed and on 28.05.2010 the Protection Officer reported that on 22.5.2010 he served the notice at Dalaipada, Sambalpur on Satish Kumar Bisi and Khitish Kumar Bisi of Sambalpur. The opposite parties were absent at the time of serving of notice as both were working outside. He further reported that Tania Rath and Sonia Dani were already married and they are residing outside. In the aforesaid facts, he returned the notice unserved. Then the service provider has reported that on 24.07.2010 at about 11 A.M. she went to serve notice on Satish Kumar Bisi, Sonia Dani and Khitish Kumar Bisi at Dalaipara, Sambalur, as they refused to accept notice she served the same by affixture. She further reported that on 24.07.2010 at about 11.35 A.M. Ashok Kumar Bisi came to the office of DSWO with all the notices and threw the same. He shouted in loud voice and left the place. The Protection Officer on 24.07.2010 has reported that the notices were served by affixture by the Service Provider Smt. Sarita Mohapatra when it was not possible to serve on them personally and she reports about the incident when Ashok Kumar Bisi threw the notices on the Service Provider in presence of others. On the basis of such report, learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh on 28.07.2010 held the notices to be sufficient and set the present petitioners ex parte and posted the case for hearing. It may be noticed that Ashok Kumar Bisi, opposite party No.2 before the trial Court, has already appeared in the Court of original jurisdiction and has contested the case. On the basis of such report, learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh on 28.07.2010 held the notices to be sufficient and set the present petitioners ex parte and posted the case for hearing. It may be noticed that Ashok Kumar Bisi, opposite party No.2 before the trial Court, has already appeared in the Court of original jurisdiction and has contested the case. However, the petitioners in the revision petition Khitish Bisi, Smt. Tania Rath and Smt. Sonia Dani sought for modification of the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. and appeared before the learned J.M.F.C., to which Court the case was transferred in the meantime, and sought permission to file their written show cause, which were rejected. Against such order of rejection, the revision application was preferred, which was numbered as Crl. Revision No.36 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge in judgment dated 07.09.2011 has dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. 3. It is not disputed at this stage that the petitioner Khitish Bisi happens to be the brother-in-law, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married sisters-in-law of the opposite party. Petitioners 2 and 3 are residing at different places. Learned counsel for the opposite party very emphatically argued that as per the provision of Section 12 (2) sub-clause (b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 provides that the notice shall be delivered to any person in charge of such place at the moment and in case of such delivery not being possible it shall be pasted at a conspicuous place on the premises. It is not disputed that the place where the notices were affixed service on petitioner No.2-Tania Rath and petitioner No.3-Smt. Sonia Dani do not reside. However, petitioner No.1 was a resident of that house where the father-in-law of the opposite party resides. In that view of the matter, the provisions quoted above also do not justify the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in the sense that such an affixture service cannot be held to be sufficient as against petitioners 2 and 3. 4. Moreover, it is admitted that the petitioners have been set ex parte on the basis of affixture service of notice. Generally, affixture service of notice is not considered to be sufficient only in cases where the opposite parties, on whom the notices are to be served, avoided service of the same. 4. Moreover, it is admitted that the petitioners have been set ex parte on the basis of affixture service of notice. Generally, affixture service of notice is not considered to be sufficient only in cases where the opposite parties, on whom the notices are to be served, avoided service of the same. Moreover, it is noted here that the petition for accepting their written statement to contest the case was rejected on 22.09.2010 on the ground that it will cause delay and result in a de novo trial. It is seen that even if the petitioner would have been allowed, it would not amount to a de novo trial. Such petitioners may file their show cause and cross-examine the opposite party arid her witness only on that point which is not covered by the cross-examination made by the father-in-law, who appeared as opposite party No.2 before the Court of original jurisdiction. Secondly, it is seen that the order intending to avoid the delay has caused delay. Already more than a year has elapsed since the date of rejection of the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Further more, in the guise of avoiding delay for disposal of the case, the Court should not refuse to afford reasonable opportunity of showing cause and hearing the parties against whom serious allegations have been made. It is further submitted here that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have very substantial point to argue in the sense that the Act does not provide for issuing notice to ladies as respondent. This Court refrained from commenting on such contention at this stage. It is for the learned J.M.F.C. to consider the contention raised at the Bar. 5. Keeping the aforesaid considerations in view, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice is expedient to allow the petition by setting aside the orders impugned passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and the learned Sessions Judge to allow the petitioner to file their written statement/show cause and to contest the case. 6. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. Case is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh in C.M.C. No.20 of 2010 and the revisional order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Crl. Revision No.36 of 2010 are hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned J.M.F.C. on 14.11.2011 and file their written statement/show cause. Misc. Case is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh in C.M.C. No.20 of 2010 and the revisional order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Crl. Revision No.36 of 2010 are hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned J.M.F.C. on 14.11.2011 and file their written statement/show cause. They may also file an application for recalling of the witnesses, if so advised. On such an application, the learned J.M.F.C. shall do well to allow them to participate in the hearing and shall take into consideration all the objections raised by the petitioners. It is further directed that the learned J.M.F.C. shall try to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and complete the same by 20.12.2011. CRLMC allowed.