IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1180 of 2008() ------------------------- MC.20/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ----------------------- R.SIVADASAN, NARAYANAPURAM HOUSE, MAROOR P.O. ELAMANNOOR VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. P.S.SUMAM, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MANNADY, KADAMPANADU, ADOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1180 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and against him the first respondent has staked a claim under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Various reliefs, including monetary relief, have been claimed in the said petition. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged domestic violence had taken place even admittedly long prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner hence contends that in as much as the Act does not have retrospective operation the petition filed by the first respondent is not maintainable. Crl.M.C.No. 1180 of 2008 2 3. I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on the disputed facts. The allegations, according to me, clearly suggest that the petitioner was guilty of domestic violence. Whether the domestic violence had ceased to exist on the date of the petition or not will certainly have to be raised and considered before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The reliefs, including monetary relief, having been claimed and allegations of domestic violence on an anterior date having specifically been alleged, there is nothing to show at the moment that such alleged violence had not continued and that the proceedings deserve to be quashed for that reason. 4. I make it clear that I do not intend to express any final opinion on any of the disputed facts. I am certainly persuaded to feel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioner does not deserve invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and must be left to raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders. 5. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 1180 of 2008 3