IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 227 of 2009() ------------------------ MC.219/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR,S/O.LATE N.AMBU, ;RAMANILAYAM;,THANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE ----------------------------------- 1. RANI MALLIKA,D/O.MANIYATH KUNHAMBU MASTER,5/471,SASTHRI NAGAR COLONY,KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 227 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Against the petitioner a petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, hereinafter referred to as DVA by the first respondent herein. The first respondent claims to be the wife of the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner there is no matrimonial relationship between him and the first respondent. The matter is pending before the J.F.M.C.-III, Kozhikode as M.C. 219 of 2008. The petitioner has various contentions to raise. 2. According to the petitioner the first respondent being not his wife, he is not at any rate liable to be proceeded against under the DVA at her instance. Additionally and alternatively he raises a contention that the first respondent is not residing within the jurisdiction of the J.F.M.C.-III, Kozhikode and therefore that court has no territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner came to this Crl.M.C.No. 227 of 2009 2 Court earlier with WPC 21303 of 2008. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn permitting the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate. When the matter went back to the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Annex.3 application raising a plea that the matter may be referred to the High Court under section 395 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has now come to this Court with the grievance that Annex.3 application is not being considered by the learned Magistrate. 3. The sense of expedition which must inform the Magistrates while considering the applications under the Act is clearly reflected in the express and implied provisions of the Act. Unless absolutely essential and unavoidable, there could not normally be a direction to consider any question as a preliminary point in such proceedings under the DVA. I do not find any circumstance justifying the issue of a direction that any question be considered as a preliminary issue in this case. 4. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. only deserves to be dismissed. I am however satisfied that there must be a specific direction to the J.F.M.C.-III, Kozhikode to dispose of the case as Crl.M.C.No. 227 of 2009 3 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date on which the Registry communicates this order to the learned Magistrate. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The Registry shall communicate this order to the learned Magistrate forthwith. (R. BASANT) Judge tm