IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14160 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.38/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- USHAKUMARI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER KRUMULLIL, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT: --------------- RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARA PANICKER, IDAVANA NIKARTHU, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.14160 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May 2009 O R D E R BASANT,J The petitioner had filed O.P.No.38/09 before the Family Court, Alappuzha. In that petition, she had claimed divorce from the respondent, her husband. She filed an I.A in the said O.P claiming relief under Section 18 read with Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called DVA). According to the petitioner, that petition was not entertained by the Family Court and the same has been returned to the petitioner with an endorsement which reads as follows: “Defect. Not related to this court. Related to Magistrate Court. May be heard” 2. Obviously, the endorsement suggests that the learned Judge of the Family Court shall hear the matter and take a decision. But the learned counsel laments that instead of posting the same before the Bench for hearing, the same has been returned to the petitioner herein. 3. We would have expected the petitioner to represent the same before the Family Court, if the same has been so W.P.(Crl)No.1416/09 2 returned erroneously without hearing and request that the matter may be heard before the Bench. Instead, the petitioner has rushed to this court with this writ petition. 4. When the endorsement is that the matter “may be heard”, prudence suggests that it is not a case of return; but it is only to be heard by the Family Court. 5. Be that as it may, we need only direct that the petitioner shall represent that petition before the Family Court within a period of ten days from this date, whereupon, the Family Court shall proceed to hold “hearing” as stated in the endorsement and take appropriate decision. 6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl)No.1416/09 3 W.P.(Crl)No.1416/09 4 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009