IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2011 -------------------------------- [MC.NO.86/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR] .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- HASEENA,29 YEARS, W/O.SHAMSUDEEN,PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE, MUDIKODE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMSUDEEN, 39 YEARS, S/O.BAPPUTTY, PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE, MUDIKODE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK – 680 001. 2. BAPPUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE,MUDIKODE DESOM THRISSUR TALUK – 680 001. 3. NABEESA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.BAPPUTTY, PUTHVEETIL HOUSE, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE,MUDIKODE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK – 680 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.730 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner filed M.C.No.86 of 2010 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking a protection order, injunction against domestic violence and other reliefs. Respondent No.1 is the husband of petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are his parents. Petitioner alleged that respondents ill-treated her and the child. They were staying in a rented premises wherefrom they were evicted for non-payment of rent. Hence they started residence in the shared household. Since they were subjected to (alleged) ill-treatment and there was an attempt for their forcible eviction petitioner filed M.C.No.86 of 2010 as above stated. Grievance of petitioner is that though in the said case petitioner had filed an application for interim relief that application was not numbered, not to say that it was considered. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as early as possible within a time limit to be prescribed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.MC No.730/2011 2 2. Without knowing the pendency of cases and priority for disposal of old cases, no direction for time bound disposal could be issued. But, having regard to the grievance of petitioner and the apprehension she has made it is necessary that the interlocutory application (if any) filed in M.C.No.86 of 2010 and if it is in order, is disposed of as early as possible. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur to dispose of the interlocutory application if any filed by petitioner in M.C.No.86 of 2010 and if it is in order as early as possible and as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge cks