IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1041 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.1026/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.5904/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM (CMP 5866/2008.) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- MANOJ KUMAR.V.S., T.C.19/2033, RAMACHANDRA VILASAM, MUNDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.VINOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNITHA BEEGUM @ SUNITHA, D/O.IBRAHIM, SILVER LANE, TENRA-138, D.P.I.ROAD, THYCAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1041 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 24.03.2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner, who was the respondent/counter petitioner in CMP No.5866 of 2008 which is an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, challenges the ad interim order passed on CMP No.5904 of 2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. As per the ex parte order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram,, the revision petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/applicant by way of maintenance. The revision petitioner who is a co-pilot working in Air India Service challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Act before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As per judgment dated 13.2.2009, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the interim order and directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the main case within Crl.R.P.No.1041/09 -:2:- two months from the date of receipt of the appellate judgment. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:- It may be true that the Magistrate has power to pass an ex parte interim order by virtue of Subsection 2 of Section 23 of the Act. But then, it is not a substitute for an interim order contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act. Since the respondent, against whom the ex parte order was passed, entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and filed his response, the learned Magistrate had to pass a final order either confirming, altering or rescinding the order. That alone will constitute the interim order envisaged under sub section 1 of Section 23 of the Act. After the appearance of the revision petitioner, the Magistrate has not so far passed any order either confirming, varying or rescinding the ex parte order dated 11.12.08. 4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. Unlike Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C, the provisions of the Act and the Rules do not contemplate a further hearing on the interlocutory application after the appearance of the respondent Crl.R.P.No.1041/09 -:3:- and the passing of a final order on such interlocutory application. In the absence of any provision in that regard, the procedure in the C.P.C cannot be read into the provisions of the Act which is one enacted for giving more effective protection on the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution and who are victims of violence of any kind carried on within the family. The revision petitioner is a co-pilot in Air India Service and the interim order passed as well as the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the trial court do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. This revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj