IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2236 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.604/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA CMP NO.3183/2007 IN MC.10/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/2ND COUNTER PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- KUNJU KUNJAMMA, PUTHOORETHU PUTHEN VEEDU BUDHANOOR KIZHAKKUM MURI, ENNAKKADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KERALA AND PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUMA, W/O.REJI, PARUTHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 3. SONA MANIYAN REJI, S/O.SUMA, PARUTHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2&3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2236 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of an interim order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur on C.M.P.No.3183 of 2007 in M.C.No.10 of 2007 and confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.604 of 2007. 2. Respondent No.2 is the daughter in law of petitioner. Respondent No.3 is the petitioner’s grandchild. Reji Samuel, husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3 (son of petitioner) is abroad. There was difference of opinion between respondent No.2, her husband and petitioner. Alleging that she is being harassed and not permitted to stay in the shared house respondent Nos.2 and 3 initiated proceedings in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II. They prayed for an interim order vide C.M.P.No.3183 of 2007. Reji Samuel remained exparte. Learned magistrate as per order dated 23.8.2007 directed Reji Samuel to pay interim maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner and others appeared in the trial court and filed objection. After hearing both sides learned magistrate has issued a protection order in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner and others are restrained from doing any harm to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the shared house. There is also a direction to the petitioner and others to permit respondent Nos.2 and 3 to stay in the Crl.R.P.No.2236/2009 2 shared house. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not interfered with the discretionary order and dismissed the appeal. It is contended by learned counsel that a partition is already effected in the family and hence respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to reside in the shared house. 3. The document evidencing partition was not produced in the trial court. The order under challenge is an interim order passed by the learned magistrate exercising his discretion. So far as it is not shown that the discretion is exercised illegally, irregularly or improperly and particularly since the main petition is yet to be decided by the learned magistrate, there is no reason why this Court should interfere at this stage. 4. Learned counsel requested that trial court may be directed to dispose of the main proceeding within a specified time. I do not think it proper or necessary to make any such direction for time bound disposal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of main proceeding. Petitioner can request learned magistrate for an expeditious disposal of the petition. With the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. Crl.R.P.No.2236/2009 3 cks