IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 766 of 2011() ------------------------ MC.13/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- RENCHU, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. MARY JOSEPH, KOPPARA VEETTIL, VAZHUTHANAM MURI, PALLIPPAD. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIBI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, KARUKAYIL THEKKEDATHU, KARICHAL MURI, VEEYAPURAM,ALAPPUZHA-690 514. 2. ALICE ABRAHAM -DO- 3. ABEY MICHILE -DO- THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.766 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, claiming to be the wife of first respondent filed M.C.No.13 of 2008 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Haripad under the provisions of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act”). In that petition, respondents 2 and 3 who are the mother and sister of the first respondent were also to be impleaded. Reliefs were claimed against respondents 2 and 3 also. Learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner @Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the first respondent did not comply with that order, petitioner initiated proceeding against the first respondent under Sec.31 of the Act and warrant was issued to the first respondent. He took bail and thereafter, it is alleged, he absconded. At that stage petitioner filed a memo stating that no relief is claimed against respondents 2 and 3 and ex parte evidence of petitioner was recorded. At that stage respondents 2 and 3 filed C.M.P.No.235 of 2011 to reopen the case for evidence contending that petitioner was married to one Reji Simon on 24.05.2010 and hence she is not entitled to make Crl.M.C.No.766 of 2011 -: 2 :- any claim. That petition was objected by the petitioner but allowed by the learned Magistrate vide Annexure-4, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel has contended that respondents 2 and 3 had no locus standi to file C.M.P.No.235 of 2011 in so far as even before that, petitioner had filed memo stating that no relief is claimed against respondents 2 and 3. According to the learned counsel, allegation that petitioner is married to Reji Simon on 24.05.2010 is not correct and at any rate until then atleast, first respondent was bound to pay maintenance to the petitioner as ordered by the Court. Learned counsel contended that it was first respondent who should have come forward to seek reopening of the case and raise a contention that petitioner is married to Reji Simon as alleged. The further contention is that at any rate if respondents 2 and 3 wanted to adduce evidence in the case, they may be directed to deposit the amount payable to the petitioner. 2. I have gone through the order under challenge. Though, a memo is filed by the petitioner stating that no relief is claimed against respondents 2 and 3, they continue to be parties to the proceeding. Being parties to the proceeding even if it assumed, proforma, they can take part in the proceeding and Crl.M.C.No.766 of 2011 -: 3 :- assist the Court in deciding the case in accordance with law, facts and evidence. There is nothing wrong in the Court seeking their assistance in doing so. That exactly is the purport of Annexure-4, order. If petitioner is married to Reji Simon on 24.05.2010 that certainly is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to take into consideration while disposing of M.C.No.13 of 2008. In the circumstances, I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge