IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 141 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.559/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CMP.2241/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERs/ APPELLANTS /RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.K. KAIRALY, W/O. LATE PRASAD, AGED 60 YEARS, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR.P.O. 2. SEEMA PRASAD, W/O. SUBHODH, AGED 32 YEARS, THOPPIL HOUSE, PALLILAMKARA, KALAMASSERY. 3. T.K. AJITH KUMAR, S/O. LATE KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM, SOUTH CHITOOR.P.O. BY ADV. MR. P.SREEKUMAR MR. K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. DR. S. SOUMYA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SATHEESAN, ASWATHI, SANTHINAGAR ANNEX ROAD, RAJAGIRI.P.O, KALAMASSERY. 2. SANOOP PRASAD, S/O. LATE PRASAD, AGED 29 YEARS, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM, SOUTH CHITTOORE.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT 2 CANNING COURT, MARKHAM, L3 S2 W4, ONTARIO, CANADA. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. MR. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.141 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. ORDER Respondents 2 to 4 in C.M.P. No. 2241 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam are the revision petitioners. They challenge the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Magistrate restraining the four respondents from evicting the applicant (Dr. S. Soumya), the 1st respondent herein from the shared house mentioned in the petition until further orders. The revision petitioners along with the 1st respondent in the above C.M.P challenged the order by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. As per the judgment dated 10.12.2009 in Crl. Appeal No. 559 of 2009, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal holding that the house in question is a shared household in respect of which interim relief was claimed by the applicant and granted by Crl.R.P. No. 141/2010 : 2 the Magistrate. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this revision. Going by the tenor of the order passed by the Magistrate, it was only an interim order evidently passed under Section 23 of the said Act and meant to be in force until further orders. The dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate court does not and cannot preclude the petitioners from seeking modification or variation within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act on proof of the matters indicated therein. Even otherwise, the order of the Magistrate was intended to be in force only until further orders which means a further order is to be passed by the Magistrate. With liberty to the petitioners to move the Magistrate again, this revision is dismissed. Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 141/2010 : 3