IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24504 of 2010(Q) --------------------------------- MC.216/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MEHERBAN W/O BASHEER KUTTY, RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU, KANNANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM. 2. BASHEER KUTTY, RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU KANNANALLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- SHAHINA, D/O SUBAIR SHAFEEK MANZIL, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA.P.O, KOLLAM-691580. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 24504 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, who are respondents 2 and 3 in M.C.No.216/2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court-II, Kollam which was an application filed by the 1st respondent herein (who is the wife of the 2nd petitioner), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is aggrieved by the Ext.P1 interim exparte order dated 15.11.2008 in CMP.No.7955/2008. According to the petitioners, on coming to know of Ext.P1 exparte order they had filed Ext.P2 detailed objection and Ext.P4 application for alteration of Ext.P1 order. The grievance of the petitioners is that no orders have been passed on Exts.P2 objection and P4 application, whereas two years after passing of Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent/ applicant has filed Ext.P3 for enforcing Ext.P1 order through police protection. W.P(C) No.24504 of 2010 : 2 : 2. This Court sitting in the rarefied jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, will not go into disputed questions of fact. But suffice it to say that when the petitioners had filed Ext.P2 objection on coming to know Ext.P1 exparte order and the petitioners had filed Ext.P4 application for varying Ext.P1 order, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the said objection and application for variation before entertaining Ext.P3 application for enforcement of Ext.P1 order through the police. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the J.F.C.M Court-II, Kollam to consider Ext.P2 objection and P4 application for varying Ext.P1 order, after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. Until then, Ext.P1 order shall not be implemented either through the police or otherwise. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb