IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 141 of 2010()
1. T.K. KAIRALY, W/O. LATE PRASAD,
... Petitioner
2. SEEMA PRASAD, W/O. SUBHODH, AGED
3. T.K. AJITH KUMAR,
Vs
1. DR. S. SOUMYA, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SANOOP PRASAD, S/O. LATE PRASAD,
3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No.141 of 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010.
ORDER
Respondents 2 to 4 in C.M.P. No. 2241 of 2009 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam are
the revision petitioners. They challenge the order dated
21.08.2009 passed by the Magistrate restraining the four
respondents from evicting the applicant (Dr. S. Soumya),
the 1st respondent herein from the shared house mentioned
in the petition until further orders. The revision petitioners
along with the 1st respondent in the above C.M.P challenged
the order by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. As per the judgment
dated 10.12.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 559 of 2009, the
Sessions Court dismissed the appeal holding that the house
in question is a shared household in respect of which
interim relief was claimed by the applicant and granted by
Crl.R.P. No. 141/2010 : 2
the Magistrate. It is the said judgment which is assailed
in this revision.
Going by the tenor of the order passed by the
Magistrate, it was only an interim order evidently passed
under Section 23 of the said Act and meant to be in force
until further orders. The dismissal of the appeal by the
lower appellate court does not and cannot preclude the
petitioners from seeking modification or variation within
the meaning of Section 25 of the Act on proof of the
matters indicated therein. Even otherwise, the order of
the Magistrate was intended to be in force only until
further orders which means a further order is to be
passed by the Magistrate. With liberty to the petitioners
to move the Magistrate again, this revision is dismissed.
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
Crl.R.P. No. 141/2010 : 3