IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2791 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2008 IN CRMP 613/08 IN CRA.189/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CMP.522/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------------- KARTHIKEYAN, KANNUALAYAM, KARIMULACKAL MURI, CHUNNAKKARA VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHEEJA, CHENNAKKARA MEKKU, MEKKU MURI THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. 3. LINESH(MINOR) CHENNAKKARA MEDDU, MEKKU MURI, THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.M.R.SARIN FOR R2 & R3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2791 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order dated 15.12.2008 on Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2008 in Crl.Appeal No.189 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara. Petitioner suffered an order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in C.M.P.No.522 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara. Challenging that order petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.34531 of 2007. That Writ Petition was dismissed on 4.2.2008 holding that remedy of petitioner is by way of appeal against the impugned order. Thereafter on 5.4.2008 petitioner preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 307 days. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II found that the delay between 4.2.2008 and 5.4.2008 is not explained and dismissed Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2008 and consequently Crl.Appeal No.189 of 2008. That order is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that dismissal is not proper. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contend that the delay is not properly explained. 2. It is not disputed that in challenge of the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate petitioner had filed Writ Petition in this Court and that petition was dismissed on 4.2.2008. So far as the delay upto 4.2.2008 is concerned, petitioner has an explanation that it was because of the pendency Crl.R.P.No.2791/2009 2 of the Writ Petition. But it is seen that appeal was presented in the appellate court only on 5.4.2008. I was not able to find any explanation for the delay from 4.2.2008 to 5.4.2008 and that precisely is the reason for the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II to dismiss C.M.P.No.613 of 2008. However I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay from 4.2.2008 to 5.4.2008 and prosecute the appeal if he has sufficient cause. Considering the facts and circumstances I am inclined to set aside the order under challenge and remit the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration with opportunity to the petitioner to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal from 4.2.2008 to 5.4.2008. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P.No.613 of 2008 and the consequent dismissal of Crl.Appeal No.189 of 2008 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara for fresh consideration and disposal after giving petitioner opportunity to show sufficient cause and opportunity for the respondents to oppose the same. Parties shall appear in the appellate court on 5.10.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks