B.Sreekumaran Nair vs A.Padmakummari Amma on 11 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36567 of 2008(C)



1. B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. A.PADMAKUMMARI AMMA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/12/2008

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                     W.P.C.No.36567 of 2008
                    ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the 11th day of December 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

Against the petitioner, the 1st respondent had initiated

proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The

learned Magistrate initially held that the petition is not

maintainable and dismissed the same. An appeal was taken

before the learned Sessions Judge and by Ext.P3 judgment, the

order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the

matter was sent back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.

The petitioner did not choose to challenge Ext.P3 order. Later,

the learned Magistrate, by Ext.P4 order allowed the petition in

part and issued directions. The petitioner has now come before

this court with the grievance that Ext.P4 order is not correct.

2. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall take necessary

steps to challenge Ext.P4 order. Relief is not being claimed

against Ext.P4 in this Crl.M.C. But the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it may be clarified that the petitioner

shall be at liberty to raise all his contentions in such an appeal

W.P.C.No.36567/08

which he proposes to file under Section 29 of the Act before the

learned Sessions Judge.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. I need only observe that the

petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his contentions and such

contentions must be considered by the learned Sessions Judge

on merits and appropriate orders passed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to urge

that objectionable acts having been committed prior to the

enactment of the Act, he must be permitted to raise a contention

that relief under the Act is not available for such causes of action

which had arisen earlier. Needless to say, such contention will

now have to be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in the

light of the facts which are revealed in the trial.

5. This writ petition is allowed in part to the above

extent.

Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

W.P.C.No.36567/08

W.P.C.No.36567/08

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007