ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 5.2.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. In the said appeal, following operative order was passed:- “(a) Criminal Appeal filed by Rekhakunvar Rajkumarsing Shekhavat against Rajkumarsinh Rohitavsing Shekhavat etc. is hereby allowed. (b) Under Section: 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, the judgment delivered by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application NO. 188/2012 dtd.30/08/2014 is hereby set aside. (c) Under Section: 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, it is hereby ordered that the complaint filed by the aggrieved person under Section:12 of the Act against Rajkumarsinh Rohitavsing Shekhavat etc. is hereby allowed. (d) Under Section: 29 read with Section:12 of the Domestic Violence Act, protection order under Section:18 of the Act is hereby issued against the respondents No. 2 to 8. Respondents No. 2 to 8 are hereby prevented from making any domestic violence on the aggrieved person and they are further prevented to enter in the area of Uttamnagar-Maninagar, Ahmedabad where the appellant is residing with her brother Vijendrasinh Pruthvisinh Chauhan. (e) Under Section: 29 read with Section 19(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, Rajkumarsinh Rohitavsing Shekhavat is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 5,000=00 as house rent to the appellant from the date of the complaint. (f) Under Section:29 read with Section:20 of the Domestic Violence Act, Rajkumarsinh Rohitavsing Shekhavat is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 5,000=00 as maintenance to the aggrieved person from the date of the complaint. (g) Under Section:22 of the Domestic Violence Act, Rajkumarsinh Rohitavsing Shekhavat is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000=00 as compensation towards mental torture and emotional distress caused by him and his family members on the aggrieved person. (h) Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Lower Court for information and necessary action.” 2. The petitioners are the original accused, who have challenged this judgment and order essentially on the ground that petitioner No. 2, who is father of petitioner No. 1, has died long ago. Petitioner No. 3 is the mother, who is illiterate and she had no knowledge of any litigation, which is pending before the trial Court. The petitioners are the original accused, who have challenged this judgment and order essentially on the ground that petitioner No. 2, who is father of petitioner No. 1, has died long ago. Petitioner No. 3 is the mother, who is illiterate and she had no knowledge of any litigation, which is pending before the trial Court. According to the petitioner, he resides not at Khetdinagar, Junjun, Rajasthan but at Lohakhan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. Other petitioners No. 4 to 7 who were the accused before the concerned Court were also not served duly. 3. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties. 4. It appears that copy of death certificate of petitioner No. 2 is brought on record. Date of death of the petitioner is mentioned in the certificate as 4.1.2016 and the date of registration is mentioned as 14.1.2016 5. Petition qua petitioner No. 2 stands abated. As far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the address shown in the cause title is the same as shown before learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. It is pointed out to this Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2 that the petitioners herein were wrongly roped in by a lawyer. However, he chose never to represent the cause and therefore the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 6. Issue notice, essentially for the purpose of compromise, returnable on 28.9.2016 Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent No. 2. 7. Request for stay of the judgment and order is not being acceded to. 8. Direct service is permitted.