IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 446 of 2008(C) ------------------------ CMP.1979/2007 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ MUHAMMED FAIZAL, S/O.ABOOBACKER, FLAT NO.13 A, EXPRESS GARDEN, POTTAMMAL, POTTAMMAL P.O., KURIVIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MURINGAKANDY JASMI, 53 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL VAHAD, WHITE HOUSE, NEAR GUARDIANS SCHOOL, ATHANIKKAL, P.O., EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. FOUSIYA D/O.ABOOBACKER, MURINGAKANDY HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA P.O., KALLAI, KOZHIKODE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03 /01 /2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 446 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the brother of the 1st respondent seeks to quash Ext.P1 petition and all further proceedings pursuant to the same and to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode to consider Ext.P2 counter filed by the petitioner to the Ext.P1 petition independently and pass orders on Ext.P1 after taking into account the contentions set forth in Ext.P2 counter. 2. Ext.P1 is the petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') One of the prayers in the petition is for a residential order under Section 19 of the Act, restraining the respondent to the petition from entering any portion of the shared household. According to the petitioner herein, upon receipt of notice on Ext.P1 petition, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 detailed counter, wherein it was contended that in a suit filed by another sister Fousiya (3rd respondent herein) against the 1st respondent herein, she had W.P.C.No. 446 of 2008 2 obtained an order on injunction restraining the 1st respondent from entering the house and so long as the said order is in force, the 1st respondent cannot restrain any other person from entering the very same house claiming the same to be the shared household. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom Ext.P1 application has been filed is about to pass orders without even considering the objections raised in Ext.P2 counter. 3. There cannot be any anticipatory direction issued against the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In case the Chief Judicial Magistrate passes any order prejudicial to the interests of the writ petitioner and without considering the objections raised in Ext.P2 counter, the writ petitioner can very well file an appeal before the Sessions Judge under Section 29 of the Act and raise whatever contentions available to him in law. As matter now stands, I see no reason as to why the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not consider the objections raised in Ext.P2 counter as well before passing orders on Ext.P1. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj