IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3340 of 2011( D) --------------------------------- MC.71/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR ............................................. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- K.K.MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.SAINABA UMMA, RESIDING AT SAFOOR MANZIL, 2/173, MANNA, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.SAFOORA @ SAFOORABI, D/O.AHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAFOOR MANZIL, 2/173, CHIRAKKAL PANCHAYATH, MANNA, P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102. 2. T.P.HAIRUNNISA, D/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI THALAYANTAKATH, RESIDING AT PALLAKKAN HOUSE, PEDENNA P.O. NEKKILI, PERINGOME, TALIPARAMBA, PIN-670 101. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DCS CRL. M. C. 3340 OF 2011 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF COMPLAINT IN MC.71/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE JFCM-II, KANNUR. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 21/12/2007 IN MC.NO.71/2007 TO ANNEXURE 1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3340 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 Order The petitioner is the first respondent in M.C.No.71 of 2007 which is now pending on the file of JFCM Court-II, Kannur. The application was filed by the first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 30.7.1978. The petitioner was stated to have contracted another marriage. So disputes arose in the matrimonial home. Hence, the complaint was filed. The main ground raised in this petition filed by the husband is that document Nos.1928 of 1990 of SRO Sreekandapuram and 1127 of 1990 of SRO Valapattanam, executed more than about 15 years prior to the commencement of the Act cannot be the subject matter of the application filed under the PWDV Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties could not have contemplated at the time of its execution that any invalidity would be attached to the documents since the Act Crl.M.C.3340/2011 2 came into force only after 15 years. The said argument has got force. Mr.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would rely upon the decision of this court in Mohankumar v. Santhamma (2011 (4) KLT 259) to support his submission that the definition of 'shared household' would clearly mean that it includes a household where the injured person lives or at any stage has lived. So, according to the learned counsel, it would take in an act complained of on a date prior to the commencement of the Act also. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner projecting the grounds as mentioned earlier. Anyway, I am not entering into that aspect now. The petitioner can certainly raise that ground before the trial court since the case is stated to be posted for evidence. The second prayer in the petition that the name of the second respondent may be deleted from the party array is not pressed by the learned counsel. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the manner indicated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.3340/2011 3 Crl.M.C.3340/2011 4