IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 342 of 2008() ------------------------ CRL. M.C. NO. 23 OF 2007 OF CHIEF JUDL. MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA PETITIONER: ------------ T.G.SASI,S/O.GOPALAN SANTHI BHAVAN, ARAKULM PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.K.SANTHA, SANTHIBHAVAN ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2008 THE COURT ON 25/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 342 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 25th January 2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the counter petitioner in Crl. M.C. 23 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judl. Magistrate Muttom, Thodupuzha has filed this petition on being aggrieved by Annexure A1 order dated 6-12- 2007 passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate in a petition filed by one C.K. Santha before the C.J.M. Thodupuzha. One of the directions given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was to hand over the key of the shared house-hold to the applicant wife and to remove himself from the shared house-hold under Section 19 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The other relief granted by the Magistrate was to direct the petitioner herein to pay half of the income from one acre of the property mentioned in the said order. Petitioner claims to have filed Annexure A2 appeal under Section 29 of the said Act before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and Annexure A3 petition under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court for suspending the execution and operation of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. As per Annexure - 4 order dated 4-01-2008 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 52 of 2008 (Annexure - 3 petition ) filed Crl.A. Crl. M/.C. No. 342 of 2008 -:2:- 6 of 2008, the learned Sessions Judge stayed only the operation of the 2nd direction regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay one half of the income from the property but that court did not grant a stay of the direction to hand over the key of the building. 2. The only direction which is called for is to dispose of Crl. Appeal 6 of 2008 pending before the Sessions Court, expeditiously, after hearing both sides. There cannot by any stay of the direction to hand over the key since that is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. If ultimately the appeal is allowed, the petitioner can get back the key from his wife. Accordingly, this M.C. is disposed of directing the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha to dispose of Crl. Appeal No 6 of 2008 as expeditious as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months of the date of service of notice on the respondent C. K. Santha in that appeal. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.