IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 60 of 2008() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2008 IN CRMPTP 1883/2008 IN CRMP.1883/2008 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM CMP.2896/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. AJINTH L. DENNISON, AGED 28, S/O. DENISON A. DAS, ELJAY COTTAGE, 21/1872, NSS SCHOOL ROAD, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 2. DENISON A. DAS, AGED 64, ELJAY COTTAGE, 21/1872, NSS SCHOOL ROAD, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. RINI.S.S, D/O. ELSY SAROJAM, AGED 25, SS BHAVAN CHEMMANNY VILLA, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, NEYYATINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Tr.P.(Cri) No. 60 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners – son and father, face proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Neyyattinkara. The petitioner in that proceeding is the wife of the 1st petitioner and daughter-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. She has initiated proceedings claiming relief under the Act. The petitioners pray that the case may be transferred to any other centre. They apprehend physical danger and harm if they were to appear before the court at Neyyattinkara. It is contended that they have been physically belaboured on one date of posting. It is, in these circumstances, that they approached the learned Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, with a prayer for transfer. Tr.P.(Cri) No. 60 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The learned Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, by the impugned order, after elaborate and exhaustive consideration of all the issues involved, came to the conclusion that the interests of justice do not demand a direction for transfer of the case. The learned Judge took note of all the relevant circumstances. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I have perused the impugned order. I have also considered the contentions raised in this petition. I must say that I do not find any reason to disagree with the court below in its decision that no transfer need be directed as prayed for. 4. In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the want of tangible material to show the reasonableness of the apprehension of the petitioners. I take note of the comparative difficulty which the claimant/1st respondent will have to suffer if the case were to be transferred now. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st respondent has given birth to a child of the 1st petitioner. I take note of the further fact that it is not essential or invariable that the respondent in a proceeding under the Act should appear personally on all dates of posting before the Magistrate. The rights conferred under the Act are essentially civil in nature, though relief is made available to the aggrieved through the Tr.P.(Cri) No. 60 of 2008 -: 3 :- structure maintained for criminal justice delivery. The the consequence of non-appearance is very evident and that is the liability to suffer an ex parte order. Nothing in the Act obliges invariable personal appearance of the respondents in proceedings before the Magistrate under the Act. Of course, where the Magistrates have any specific reasons and direct the respondents to appear, they will have to abide by that direction. 5. I am satisfied that if the petitioners have any specific reasons to personally appear before the learned Magistrate and on such occasions they apprehend any physical harm, they can approach the police authorities and on such occasions, the police must discharge their responsibility under law to ensure that the petitioners are enabled to appear before court without the threat of any physical hardship, risk or harm. 6. With the above observations, this transfer petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Tr.P.(Cri) No. 60 of 2008 -: 4 :-