IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36567 of 2008(C) -------------------------- CRA.462/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM CMP.397/2007 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------- B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR AGED 60 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, KUNCHU VEEDU, NEMOM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.PADMAKUMARI AMMA AGED 56 YEARS, KAUSTHUBHAM, KRISHNAPURAM GRAMAM, NEYYATINKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.36567 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December 2008 J U D G M E N T Against the petitioner, the 1st respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate initially held that the petition is not maintainable and dismissed the same. An appeal was taken before the learned Sessions Judge and by Ext.P3 judgment, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was sent back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. The petitioner did not choose to challenge Ext.P3 order. Later, the learned Magistrate, by Ext.P4 order allowed the petition in part and issued directions. The petitioner has now come before this court with the grievance that Ext.P4 order is not correct. 2. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall take necessary steps to challenge Ext.P4 order. Relief is not being claimed against Ext.P4 in this Crl.M.C. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his contentions in such an appeal W.P.C.No.36567/08 which he proposes to file under Section 29 of the Act before the learned Sessions Judge. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I need only observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his contentions and such contentions must be considered by the learned Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate orders passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to urge that objectionable acts having been committed prior to the enactment of the Act, he must be permitted to raise a contention that relief under the Act is not available for such causes of action which had arisen earlier. Needless to say, such contention will now have to be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in the light of the facts which are revealed in the trial. 5. This writ petition is allowed in part to the above extent. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.36567/08 W.P.C.No.36567/08 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007