Viji vs Binju on 12 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3713 of 2007()


1. VIJI, D/O MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BINJU, S/O GEORGE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :12/12/2007

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.3713 of 2007
                     -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 12th day of December, 2007

                                O R D E R

The petitioner has initiated proceeding under the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred

to as the `D.V Act’) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Alappuzha. The matter is pending before that court. I am

informed that the matter has reached the stage of evidence. The

evidence has not started. The learned C.J.M has directed that

the parties be referred for counseling. There is no counselor for

that court. As a result of this, the matter is dragging on. The

petitioner filed an application for a direction to restrain the

respondent/husband from receiving an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

from the landlord of a building. That application was dismissed

as per Annexure-A4. It is, in these circumstances, that the

petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court with this petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. What is the prayer ? The learned counsel for the

petitioner in the course of discussions at the Bar fairly accepts

Crl.M.C.No.3713 of 2007 2

that Annexure-A4 order is liable to be challenged before the

Sessions Court under Section 29 of the D.V Act. As the said

remedy is available to the petitioner, I find no reason why the

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked in

favour of the petitioner. The petitioner must seek relief against

Annexure-A4 order by preferring an appropriate appeal under

Section 29 of the D.V Act.

3. The next grievance of the petitioner is that the learned

Magistrate instead of referring the parties for counseling must

have referred the parties to the Lok Adalat. There are no

counselors whereas there is a Lok Adalat readily available in

place. The learned Magistrate must have referred the parties to

the Lok Adalat. The matter is now being adjourned unnecessarily

only to facilitate counseling.

4. It is for the petitioner to make a specific request in

accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act

to make a reference to the Adalat. The learned Magistrate must

consider such request and pass appropriate ordesr. In the facts

and circumstances of this case, unless there be any other

Crl.M.C.No.3713 of 2007 3

compelling reason which has not been brought to my notice, I do

certainly feel that if counseling is not possible immediately,

reference to the Lok Adalat can be made. However, it is for the

learned Magistrate to consider the petitioner’s request and pass

appropriate orders. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that

this Crl.M.C need only be dismissed with the above observations.

5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed with the above

observations.

6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3713 of 2007 4