IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3956 of 2011() ------------------------- CRA.322/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.123/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR (CRMP.7977/2011) .................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT :- ----------------------------------------------- JIJINA, AGED 26 W/O.BIJI BASHEER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BIJI MANZIL, KARAMMOODU, KUNDAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK (EARLIER OF NABEESA MANZIL, KARAMMOODU, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK) BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.PRAVEEN THOMAS ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/APPELLANTS :- -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. BASHEER, BIJI MANZIL, KARAMMOODU, KUNDAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK 3. JAMEELA, BIJI MANZIL, KARAMMOODU, KUNDAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3956 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1: THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN CRMP NO.7977/2011 IN M.C.123/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIREST CLASS MAGISTRATE -III, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE A2: THE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25/07/2011 IN CRMP NO.7977/2011 IN IN M.C.123/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE A3: THE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN CRA NO.322/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3956 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November 2011 O R D E R Petitioner filed a petiton before J.F.C.M.-III, Punalur for certain reliefs under Sec.23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An exparte interim order was passed by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the respondents therein, who are stated to be the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law should not disturb the peaceful enjoyment and residence of the petitioner in the shared household. The further direction is that they should not alienate the property shown in the schedule therein until further orders. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 have filed appeal – Crl.A.No.322/2011 before the Sessions Court, Kollam. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the operation of the judgment in Crl.A.No.322/2011 is stayed, the petitioner and her 6 year old child would be ousted from Crl.M.C. No.3956 of 2011 -: 2 :- the shared household. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's father had abadoned her and her mother. Her mother was re-married and is staying in another house. So the petitioner is left without any house and if the order passed by the Sessions Court is not stayed for a short while by this Court, the petitioner would thrown out from the shared household. 3. The order stated to have been passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not produced. But the copy of the appeal memorandum filed by the respondents has been produced which would show that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the Sessions Court on the ground that petitioner was divorced by the first respondent therein by pronouncing talaq. If that be so, the petitioner cannot claim any relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seems to be the contention advanced by the appellants before the appellate court. It is submitted by the Crl.M.C. No.3956 of 2011 -: 3 :- learned counsel for the petitioner that no document whatsoever was produced by the appellants before the appellate court to show that a valid talaq was pronounced by the first respondent in the M.C. 4. The only request made by the learned counsel is that indulgence may be shown only to the extent of staying the operation of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for a short while till a criminal revision petition is filed before this Court for which the petitioner had already applied for the certified copy of the order of the Sessions Court. 5. In these circumstances, operation of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge so far it relates to relief No.1 granted by the learned Magistrate shall be kept in abeyance till 26.11.2011. But it is made clear that the petitioner shall not cause any sort of disturbance or inconvenience to the respondents who are residing in the house shown in the schedule to the petition nor can the Crl.M.C. No.3956 of 2011 -: 4 :- petitioner make use of this order to advance any sort of contention in the appeal or revision as the case may be based on this order. In other words, this indulgence is shown only to see that the petitioner and her child are not thrown out (if they are residing in the shared household) as on the date of filing of M.C.No.123/2011. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt