IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3289 of 2008()
1. KESAVA PILLAI, KESAVA VILASOM,
... Petitioner
2. SARADHAMMA, W/O. KESAVA PILLAI,
3. SURESH KUMAR,
4. USHA KUMARI, W/O. SURESH KUMAR,
Vs
1. ANITHA KUMARI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 3289 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners are the respondents in M.C.16 of 2007 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. First
respondent is the complainant. She filed C.M.P.2364 of 2007
seeking an order under section 23 of Protection of Women for
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned Magistrate as per order
dated 7.8.2007 restrained petitioners 3 and 4 from entering into
the residential building in the plaint B schedule property now
occupied by first respondent until further orders. All the
petitioners were restrained from collecting any rent from the
tenants occupying the building in the plaint A schedule property.
The second part of the order was later modified by the learned
Magistrate as per order dated 13.9.2007 to the effect that
petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are restrained from collecting any rent
from the building in the plaint A schedule property and allowed
first respondent to collect only 3/4th share of the rent.
Petitioners challenged that order before Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 770 of 2007. First
CRRP3289/08 2
respondent has also challenged the order contending that all
the reliefs sought for in the main petition should have been
allowed. Learned Sessions Judge disposed both the appeals
together as per judgment dated 17.7.2008. Both the appeals
were dismissed confirming the order passed by learned
Magistrate. Learned Magistrate was directed to dispose the
main application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within
two months from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioners
are challenging the order in this revision filed under sections
397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard.
3. The learned counsel submitted that learned Sessions
Judge decided the questions which are to be settled in the main
application and whether an order of injunction restraining
petitioners from collecting the rent is within the scope of
clause (e) of section 18 was decided by the learned Sessions
Judge when that is one of the questions to be decided ultimately
in the main application. Learned counsel also submitted that
learned Sessions Judge rendered a finding on the ownership of
the furniture of the downstair portion of the building, which was
later tenanted by the third petitioner though originally a hotel
CRRP3289/08 3
was run by third petitioner.
4. Learned counsel also submitted that as the learned
Magistrate has to decide all the questions and learned Sessions
Judge had directed the learned Magistrate to dispose the main
application as expeditiously as possible, all the questions may be
directed to be decided by the learned Magistrate untrammeled
by any observation in the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
There is force in the submission made by learned counsel. When
the learned Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to dispose
the main application, necessarily learned Magistrate has to
decide all the points involved. Whatever observations are made
by learned Sessions Judge is only for the purpose of
interlocutory order and will not prevent learned Magistrate from
considering the question in the proper perspective. Learned
Magistrate to dispose the main case untrammeled by any
observation in his previous orders or the order passed by
learned Sessions Judge.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-