IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2517 of 2010() ------------------------- CRMP.1928/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOOSHA S., MUNNARAM, T.C.10/1532(1), VKRA-D-411, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AMAN J.ASOK, S/O.JOOSHA S., MINOR, AGED 6 1/2 YEARS, MUNNARAM, T.C.10/1532(1), VKRA-D-411, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASOKAN ASSARI, S/O.RAMANKUTTY ASSARI, MET ATTENDANT, WORKING AT AIRPORT METEROLOGICAL OFFICE, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT QUARTERS(A1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2517 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the wife and child of the first respondent. They have filed an application against the first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After taking evidence of the petitioners, an ex parte order was passed against the first respondent, restraining him from committing any domestic violence and also prohibiting him from entering the shared house hold. He was also directed to pay compensation as fixed by the Magistrate. Annexure B is the copy of that order. The first respondent preferred an appeal challenging Annexure B order. On an application moved by the appellant/first respondent, learned Sessions Judge has passed orders staying the operation of some of the directions given by the Magistrate, including the prohibition imposed against the respondent from sharing the house hold. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the wife challenging the Crl.MC.2517/10 2 interim order passed by the Sessions Judge staying the operation of the order of the Magistrate as indicated above. Though notice was given, the first respondent husband has not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. From the submissions made and also the order impugned, it is noticed that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the interim order challenged in this petition without hearing the petitioners. The interim direction in that order can be got vacated by the petitioner by moving an application for an early disposal of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that retaining the direction issued by this Court while admitting the Crl.M.C., learned Sessions Judge may be directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.1928/10 expeditiously. It is noticed that while admitting the Crl.M.C. on file, interim stay of condition No.3 passed by the Sessions Judge was granted by this Court. By the ex parte order passed in Crl.M.P.1928/10, the Sessions Judge Crl.MC.2517/10 3 has stayed the operation of the prohibitory injunction passed by the learned Magistrate restraining the husband from entering the shared house hold. The injunction so passed by the learned Magistrate shall remain in force in terms of the interim stay granted in the Crl.M.C., till disposal of Crl.M.P.1928/10 by the Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge shall give top priority for hearing of Crl.M.P.1928/10 and make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal also as expeditiously as possible. This petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.28/07.