IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 OP(Crl.).No. 184 of 2011(Q) --------------------------- ( CMP.3113/2010 of C.J.M. COURT, MANJERI ) PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SHAMSEER, AGED 42, S/O.PANIKKAVEETIL MUHAMMED YOOSUF, PANIKKAVEETIL HOUSE, PATHAPIRIYAM, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENTS/IST PETITIONER AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. AMINA, D/O.VADAKAN MUHAMMED, VADAKKAN HOUSE, PATHAPIRIYAM, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP,BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(Crl.) No.184 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P3, order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on C.M.P.No.3113 of 2010. That is a petition filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the said order directed petitioner not to commit domestic violence towards respondent No.1 and to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance. It is contended by learned counsel that the order is ex facie illegal since notwithstanding that the order was passed even before petitioner entered apperance the order states that parties were heard. Hence it is contended that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is required. 2. It is not disputed before me and the decision of this Court in Chithrangathan v. Seema (2007 (4) KLT 424) also shows that an interim order passed under Section 23(1) of the Act is appealable under Section 29 of the Act. If that be so the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order in appeal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Dr.Preceline George v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 454) to contend that the guidelines prescribed therein have been violated by learned OP(Crl.)No.184/2011 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate in passing the impugned order. Be it so, that does not make the order non-appealable under Section 29 of the Act. If learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has violated the guidelines prescribed by this Court that is a matter which petitioner has to urge in a properly instituted appeal. There is no reason for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel submitted that the appeal may be barred by limitation and hence some time may be granted to prefer the appeal. Learned counsel requests that till such time the impugned order may be kept in abeyance. 3. The request to keep the impugned order in abeyance as such cannot be accepted. However, having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to keep the impugned order in abeyance for one month on condition that petitioner deposited in the court below for payment to respondent No.1 as maintenance `.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) per month from 15.07.2010 till the expiry of one month from this day, within one month from this day. This petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks