IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11818 of 2007(F)
1. PROF.SUSEELA, SREEPADMAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.L.PRASANTH, RESIDING AT N.G.BHAVAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/04/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
W.P.C.No.11818 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is against an order passed in an
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the D.V Act’).
After hearing both parties, the learned Magistrate who had initially
granted an interim order under Section 23 of the D.V Act had
proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 12 of the D.V Act.
The petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 29 of
the D.V Act before the Sessions Court and I find absolutely no
justification in the attempt of the petitioner to invoke the
constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to challenge
the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempts
to pick holes in the impugned order by saying that statutory
provisions have not been adverted to and complied with by the court.
I have gone through the impugned order. I find no such vice vitiating
the impugned order, which can persuade this Court to invoke its
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution in favour of the petitioner, who has not chosen to invoke
W.P.C.No.11818 of 2007 2
the statutory right of appeal under Section 29 of the D.V Act. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also raises a contention that the
definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V Act has
been satisfied by the case of the petitioner in this case and that the
learned Magistrate erred in holding it to be otherwise. It is for the
petitioner to raise all his contention in an appropriate appeal to be
instituted under Section 29 of the D.V Act.
3. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
Return the copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner. I may hasten to observe that I have only chosen to hold
that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution need not be
invoked and I have not intended to express any opinion on merits of
the acceptability of the order.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-