IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23219 of 2010(O) -------------------------- MC.52/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.PHILIP,S/O.G.PAPPACHAN, PUTHILAZHIKATHU THEKKATHIL VEEDU,PAZHAYATTUM MURI,EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. PAPPACHAN,S/O.GEEVARGHESE,DO. DO. 3. THANKAMMA,W/O.PAPPACHAN,DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SOSAMMA PHILIP @ SUSAN ANTONY, D/O.G.KOSHY,VADAKKUMKARA CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KODINJAL, OZHUVAPARACKAL PO,EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK(FROM PUTHILAZHIKATHU THEKKATHIL VEEDU, PAZHAYATTUM MURI, EAST KALADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. PIN: 687 023 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.23219 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the respondents in a proceedings initiated against them by the respondents herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for short, the 'Act'. On an application moved in the above proceedings, the learned Magistrate had passed Ext.P2 order dated 14.07.2010 restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful residence of the respondents in the household alleged to be under the occupation of all the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that within three days thereafter, the respondent moved another application alleging that she had been physically assaulted by the respondents/petitioners herein and thereby they had committed domestic violence. She further alleged that the police had registered a crime over the above incident. The learned WP(C).23219/10 2 Magistrate, thereupon, passed Ext.P1 order dated 17.07.2010 by which, the 1st petitioner herein/husband of the respondent was directed to keep himself away from the shared household until further orders. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P1 order is impeached by the petitioners contending that the learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in reviewing or modifying Ext.P2 order, without hearing them. 2. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and also perusing the materials produced, particularly Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the learned Magistrate with reference to the Act, I find the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of approaching the court below and seek modification or discharge of the orders by placing relevant materials in support of their case. Prima facie, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass the orders impugned under the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in the circumstances, submitted that a direction be issued to the court below to consider their application for vacating the orders, as expeditiously as possible, since 2nd and 3rd petitioners are pretty WP(C).23219/10 3 old, both of them aged four'score and above. He submits that the 1st petitioner alone is there to look after them. In case a petition is filed by the petitioners for vacating the orders, the learned Magistrate shall give it top priority and dispose it in accordance with law, at the earliest. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WP(C).23219/10 4