Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AHAMMED,S/O.LATE KUNHABDULLA,AGED 60 versus LAILA,D/O.ASSAINAR,AGED 28 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AHAMMED,S/O.LATE KUNHABDULLA,AGED 60 v. LAILA,D/O.ASSAINAR,AGED 28 YEARS - Crl MC No. 969 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6258 (27 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 969 of 2007()

1. AHAMMED,S/O.LATE KUNHABDULLA,AGED 60
... Petitioner

2. MOITHU,S/O.LATE KUNHABDULLA,AGED 50

Vs

1. LAILA,D/O.ASSAINAR,AGED 28 YEARS,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :27/03/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.No.969 of 2007

Dated this the 27th day of March 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners are brothers and the first respondent is said to be the wife of their brother. The first respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate received the said petition and ordered notice to the petitioners herein. The petitioners have now entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. Proceedings before the learned Magistrate are going on. It is at that stage, the petitioners have come before this court with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

2. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that the learned Magistrate may pass interim order under Section 23 or final order under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act which may be sought to be executed by initiation of steps for Crl.M.C.No.969/07 2 prosecution under Section 32 of the Act. This would jeopardise the position of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners raises the further objection that the procedural requirements of rule 6 has not been complied with and proper application in the prescribed formate has not been filed. The learned counsel further raises a contention that the learned Magistrate has secured an ex parte report of the Commissioner deputed by the court. This procedure is unknown to law and in these circumstances the interests of justice would fail if the learned Magistrate were permitted to proceed with the matter and pass orders.

3. I do not find any substance in the grievance raised. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all their objections before the learned Magistrate. They can raise all objections including the objections that are referred to above that the procedural formalities have not been complied with and that no reliance should be placed on the ex parte report of the Commissioner. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider all the objections of the petitioners and pass appropriate and correct orders Crl.M.C.No.969/07 3 whether interim order under Section 23 or final order under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is, in these circumstances, dismissed but I may hasten to observe that the learned Magistrate must consider all objections raised by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders - whether under Section 23 or under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. Copy of such order must be furnished to the petitioner on the date of pronouncement of the order itself, as directed under Section 24 of the Domestic Violence Act to enable him to seek remedy, if necessary before the Appellate Court under Section 29.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.969/07 4 Crl.M.C.No.969/07 5

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.