Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.E.JOSE, AGED 53 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.E.JOSE, AGED 53 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC - WP(C) No. 11966 of 2007(Y) [2007] RD-KL 7524 (11 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11966 of 2007(Y)

1. K.E.JOSE, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent

2. THYRESSYAMMA JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS,

For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/04/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 11966 of 2007 Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition and the specific reliefs claimed are enumerated below:

"(a) issuing a writ of mandamus directing the JFCM Court IV, Kozhikode in CMP 917 of 2007 filed by the 2nd respondent under Sec.23 of the Act 43 of 2005 to proceed strictly according to law bearing in mind the true spirit of the Act 43 of 2005; and

(b) issuing a writ of directions to the court below, JFCM Court IV Kozhikode in CMP 917/07 to duly, patiently and impartially hearing all parties in the matter and considering the pleadings of the petitioner/accused especially preliminarily considering the factum of mental illness of the complainant raised by her son wanting to be appointed her next friend in the case; and ) issuing any other writ, orders or appropriate directions as this Honourable Court deems fit in all the circumstances of the case." The petitioner is the respondent in a application filed before the learned Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DVA). The learned Magistrate, needless to say, is bound to dispose of the said application under W.P.C.No. 11966 of 2007 2 Section 12 imbibing the spirit of expedition, which is demanded of him as per the stipulations of Section 12(5). No specific or special directions appear to be necessary. The learned Magistrate has to dispose of the application under Section 12 in accordance with law in due compliance with the mandate of Section 12(5). I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not do the same. There is no necessity for the learned Magistrate to consider any question as a preliminary issue considering the mandate of Section 12(5) and it is for the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application in accordance with law and expeditiously. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.