IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19470 of 2009(Q) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.3169/2009 IN CMP.5206/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------ GANESHAN MASTER,AGED 65 YEARS,RESIDING AT 'SREEMATHI NILAYAM',BEHIND K.T.C,HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT : -------------------------- C.LATHA,AGED 40 YEARS,D/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ANNAPOORNESWARI HOUSE,KIZHAKKE VALAPPIL,KOTTIKKULAM,UDUMA.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 19470 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second respondent in C.M.P No.5206/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. It was filed by the respondent under Sections 12, 17, 18(a)(b), 19(a), 20(a) and 22 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). Under Exhibit P4 order dated 1/07/2009, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose the petition at the earliest. The grievance of the petitioner is that even thereafter, the learned Magistrate under Exhibit P8 order allowed C.M.P No.3169/2009 filed by the respondent by appointing a commission to inspect the facilities in the shared house without disposing the petition. This petition is filed to quash Exhibit P8 order contending that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed under the Act as it is a function specifically assigned to the Protection officers. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that under the Act, Magistrate could not have appointed W.P(C). No. 19470 / 2009 Page numbers a commission and if at all the direction to furnish the details should have been given to the Protection Officer. It was also argued that when this Court directed the Magistrate to dispose the case the application for appointment of commission should not have been allowed. 3. Section 9 of the Act provides the duties and functions of Protection Officers. Duties under clause (a) is to assist the Magistrate in the discharge of his functions under this Act, under clause (b) to make a domestic incident report to the Magistrate and under clause © to make an application, if the aggrieved person so desires, claiming relief for issuance of a protection order and under clause (d) to ensure that the aggrieved person is provided legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, and under clause (e) to maintain a list of all service providers providing legal aid or counselling, shelter homes and medical facilities in a local area within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and under clause (f) to make available a safe shelter home, if the aggrieved person so requires and under clause (g) to get the aggrieved person medically examined, if she has sustained bodily W.P(C). No. 19470 / 2009 Page numbers injuries and under clause (h) to ensure that the order for monetary relief under Section 20 is complied with and executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under clause (i) to perform such other duties as may be prescribed. 4. Section 28 provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of objects and reasons of Act makes it clear that the Act was enacted to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect women from being victims of violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence. Hence, it cannot be said that Magistrate is powerless to appoint a commission to collect the necessary data. In such circumstances, Exhibit P8 order cannot be interfered for the reason that the learned Magistrate cannot direct the Advocate Commissioner to note the facts stated therein. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of Exhibit P4 order, the case has not been disposed of. W.P(C). No. 19470 / 2009 Page numbers When under Exhibit P4, this court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the petition expeditiously, learned Magistrate is bound to dispose the same without further delay. No further direction is warranted. The Writ Petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE scm