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. 1050 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.410/2007 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CMP.2121/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.R.AJITH, AGED 42, K.R.SADANAM, ERAM CHERRY, KARAMCODE, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAYAPALAN, AGED 62, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PRAPANCHAM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, IRAVIPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. SUDHA, AGED 41, K.R.SADANAM, ERATHU CHERRY, KARAMCODE, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT PADMAVILA, HOUSE NO.KC XIII/458, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED 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.1050 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24 th day of March, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner, who was the 1st respondent/counter petitioner in CMP No.2121 of 2007 in CMP No.1822 of 2007 challenges the interim order dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam directing him to pay on an interim basis, rent to the applicant-wife for the alternate accommodation arranged by her @ Rs.3000/- per month from 5.1.2006 onwards and restraining the three respondents including the revision petitioner from committing any acts affecting the peaceful residence of the applicant, her children and mother in their present residence and directing the revision petitioner herein to pay on an interim basis additional monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.500/- to the applicant, Rs.400/- to the eldest child and Rs.300/- to the youngest child from 13.02.2007 onwards. 2. The revision petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam as Crl.Appeal Crl.R.P.No.1050 of 2009 2 No.410 of 2007. As per judgment dated 20.12.2008, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the interim order and directing the learned Magistrate to pass final order in the case. It is the appellate judgment which is assailed in this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the orders passed concurrently by the courts below, contending, inter alia, as follows:- The revision petitioner is admittedly abroad and the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate without hearing the petitioner is one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The domestic violence alleged was committed prior to the coming into force of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and therefore the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain, much less pass the impugned order. 4. These contentions were negated by the lower appellate court and, according to me, rightly. In the first place, the learned Magistrate was disposing of an interlocutory application and he has the jurisdiction even to pass an ad interim order by virtue of Section 23(2) of the said Act. The second counter Crl.R.P.No.1050 of 2009 3 petitioner, who is none other than the mother of the revision petitioner is having a power of attorney of the revision petitioner and the lower appellate court has rightly held that the revision petitioner had an adequate opportunity of hearing when his mother was heard by the learned Magistrate. 5. With regard to the contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition alleging domestic violence which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act, the lower appellate court has rightly observed that the act of violence alleged in the petition is a continuing one. The applicant had specifically alleged that she had been checked out of the shared household and was forced to reside along with her children in a rented premises and thus a continuing cause of action which can be taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and appropriate releifs granted under the provisions of the Act. I therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. It is open to the revision petitioner to raise his contentions when the main application namely CMP No.1822/2007 comes up for Crl.R.P.No.1050 of 2009 4 consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It goes without saying that the learned Magistrate will have to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Having regard to the object of the Act I do not intend to fix any time limit because the statute itself has fixed a time limit of two months under Sub section 5 of Section 12. Every endeavour shall be made to adhere to the said time limit by the learned Magistrate. Dated this the 24 th day of March, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj