IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2954 of 2008() ------------------------- MC.101/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- P.DEVADAS, PANCHAMI, PHD PUMP HOUSE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, (OFFICE ADDRESS DEVADAS.P., U.D.CLERK, PASSPORT OFFICE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MRS.SMITHA, D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, MIDLAND PARK RESIDENCY APARTMENTS OPP.WOODBINE GARDEN RESTAURANT, MANJERI ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM. (OFFICE ADDRESS, U.D.CLERK, PASSPORT OFFICE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM). R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2954 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Against the petitioner proceedings under The Domestic Violence Act has been initiated by the second respondent, his wife. It is not the first occasion when the parties are before court. Earlier also they were before court and the matter was settled at the Lok Adalath, it is submitted. Subsequently the present proceedings under the DVA has been initiated and Annex.A7 interim order has been passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the proceedings against him initiated by his wife under the Protection of Women from DVA may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction under the above Act. No contention has been urged before me, which can justify the plea that jurisdiction has been invoked Crl.M.C.No. 2954 of 2008 2 under the DVA without requisite legal authority. The only contention is that the allegations raised are not correct and are false. Having settled a previous proceedings, the respondent/wife is not justified in approaching the learned Magistrate again with a petition under the DVA. That amounts to unjustified resort to the remedy available under the Act. This in short is the contention raised. 4. It will be too early for this Court at this stage in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to decide whether the allegations raised are true or false. I am unable to accept the contention that on the allegations raised proceedings under the DVA cannot be initiated. The petitioner raises a grievance against Annex.A7 order, which is an appealable order, it is now trite. The petitioner can either appear before the learned Magistrate and seek vacation of the interim ex parte order. In the alternative he can challenge the same in a properly instituted appeal before the Sessions Court. 5. I am not persuaded to agree that either the proceedings initiated as M.C. 101 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate under the Crl.M.C.No. 2954 of 2008 3 DVA or Annex.A7 interim order passed deserve to be interfered with by the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the acceptability of the contentions raised by the petitioner. He must raise those contentions before appropriate court. (R. BASANT) Judge tm