IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 14816 OF 2010(Q) {CRP.14/2008 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA} .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- K.B. PRASADAN NAIR, S/O. BASKARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, KARIYATTU VEEDU, VAIKAM KARA, KONNI VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT CENTRAL RAILWAY D.E.E.T.D OFFICE, KALYAN, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTHRA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): REVISION PETITIONER AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. VEENA PRASAD,D/O.K.B. PRASADAN NAIR, AGED 21 YEARS, CHENNAMALA KONDOOR HOUSE, KOLABHAGOM.P.O, KURIYANOOR MURI, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 ADV. SMT.P.V.KOCHUTHRESIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14816 of 2010 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2009 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.14 OF 2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1 TRUE COPY OF THE MC 36/08 DT. 28.3.2008. //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed challenging the propriety, legality and correctness of an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, directing the magistrate to take back the petition filed by the respondent on file and to dispose it of in accordance with law. 2. The respondent herein, a 19 year old nursing student, filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 {hereinafter referred to as “the Act”}, against her father, claiming her education expenses, including the capitation fee, for continuing her studies in the Nursing Course. The learned magistrate, after examining the petition, was of the view that the allegations set out do not constitute domestic violence as contemplated under the Act, with the result the W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 :: 2 :: petition was dismissed in limine. The respondent filed a revision as Crl.R.P.No.14/08 before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, challenging the dismissal of her petition. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining the order passed by the court below, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and also the petition, took a different view from that of the magistrate and passed the impugned order directing the magistrate to take back the petition on file and dispose it as per the provisions of the Act. The present writ petition is filed by the respondent in the petition, the father of the nursing student. 3. At the outset the learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly submitted that he does not stand in the way of having an enquiry on the merit of the complaint, but, untrammelled by the observations made in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which, according to the counsel, indicate of a finality on the disputed questions covered by the petition. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, a right of appeal as covered by Section 29 thereof, is provided against the order passed by W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 :: 3 :: the magistrate; but, taking a short cut, the petitioner had preferred a revision against the dismissal of the petition. Counsel also asked for reserving his right to canvass that question also at a later stage, if found necessary, to safeguard the interests of the respondent in the proceedings. 4. True, that Section 29 of the Act provides for preferring an appeal against the order passed by the learned magistrate under the provisions of the Act. However, when a petition has been dismissed in limine, that too on the ground that no case has been made out to take cognizance of domestic violence as contemplated under the Act, the right of the aggrieved person to challenge the order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of court cannot be doubted. So much so, I do not find any impropriety in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the learned Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order interfering with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the petition moved under the Act. However, it is seen, some of the observations made in the W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 :: 4 :: order passed in the revision, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, may give an impression that the petitioner in the proceedings has made out a case for the reliefs sought for. That, of course, is a matter to be decided, after giving an opportunity to the respondent to defend the proceedings, and also lead evidence in support of his defence. 5. Having regard to Section 3 of the Act dealing with the domestic violence, prima facie, it has to be stated that in the case of economic abuse, it may be open to an aggrieved person to claim maintenance which is statutorily recognized. How far the respondent in the writ petition, the petitioner before the magistrate, is entitled to the reliefs set up in her petition, require to be considered on its merit, after enquiry in the matter. But that enquiry has to be done untrammelled by the observations made in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, expressing an apprehension that the observations made by the Sessions Judge under the impugned order may have its influence in the disposal W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 :: 5 :: of the complaint by the magistrate, urged for issue of a specific direction from this court that the petition should be disposed of, in accordance with law, providing opportunity to the writ petitioner to raise all his objections including challenge over the maintainability of the petition. I find, the apprehension raised by the counsel for the writ petitioner is unfounded, as the order passed by the magistrate dismissing the petition filed by the respondent and also the order disposing the revision against such dismissal, by the Sessions judge, have all been passed without notice to the writ petitioner/respondent in the proceedings before the magistrate and so much so, no further clarification or direction of this court to the magistrate that such orders would not bind him is warranted. However, to allay the apprehension raised by the writ petitioner, it is made clear that the petition of the respondent moved under the provisions of the Act shall be disposed of on its merit untrammelled by the previous order passed by the magistrate and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge in revision. W.P.(C).No.14816 of 2010 :: 6 :: 6. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the court below on 06.09.2010. Hand over the order to counsel on both sides. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//