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. 179 of 2011(Q) --------------------------- ( C.M.P.794/2010 IN MC.15/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,THAMARASSERY ) .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------- 1. K.K.RASHEED, KOYILATTU VEETTIL, P.O.KIZHAKKOTH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KHADEEJA, KOYILATTU VEETTIL, P.O.KIZHAKKOTH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND STATE: --------------- 1. K.P.JASEENA, KUTTIPPALAKKAL HOUSE, MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 005. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. 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.179 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P2, order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Thamarassery on C.M.P.No.794 of 2010 in M.C.No.15 of 2010. That is a petition filed by respondent No.1 against petitioners under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned Magistrate vide the said order directed petitioners not to commit domestic violence towards respondent No.1 and pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 and her child. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioners did not get information about the said order and learnt about it only in December, 2010 when an application was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 as C.M.P.No.4004 of 2010 to execute the said order. 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(2) of the Act is appealable under Section 29 of the Act. If that be so, proper remedy available to the petitioners 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) OP(Crl.) No.179/2011 2 to contend that the guidelines prescribed therein have been violated by the learned 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 Magistrate has violated the guidelines prescribed by this Court, that is a matter which petitioners have 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 from this day on condition that petitioners deposited in the court below for payment to respondent No.1 as maintenance `.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) per month payable from 27.02.2010 till the expiry of one month from this day, within one month from this day. This petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks