IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3113 of 2008(U) ------------------------- CRA.8/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRMP.5494/2004 of J.M.F.C.-III,PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANKARAN.T., S/O.THITHI VAIDYAN, AGED 39, VALAYIL HOUSE, ARAMTHODI, MANJAPRA AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUJATHA.K., D/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 30, KUPPAMPULLY HOUSE, PANAYUR DESOM, POLPULLY, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.3113 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner when he came before this Court was that an appeal preferred by him against an order passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 though admitted, the application for stay was not being considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Report of the learned Sessions Judge was called for. The report shows that after the order dated 4.2.08 passed by this Court, the learned Sessions Judge had advanced the hearing of the appeal and has disposed of Crl.M.P.89 of 2008 subject to a condition which directs the petitioner to make a one time payment of Rs.500/-. 2. The grievance raised has now been redressed. But the petitioner does not appear to be satisfied yet. The petitioner wants this Court now to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct suspension of the interim order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I am not persuaded to agree. Whatever be the defect in the order, the petitioner must W.P(C).No.3113 of 2008 2 raise his contentions before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.8/08. The learned Sessions Judge, needless to say, must dispose of Crl.Appeal No.8/08 as expeditiously as possible. I am not persuaded to agree that there is any such circumstances which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to interfere with the order passed in Crl.M.P.89 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. This Writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- W.P(C).No.3113 of 2008 3 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.3113 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 ORDER Call for a report from the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad as to why Crl.M.P.89 of 2008 is not disposed of yet. The counsel submits that such a Crl.M.P has been filed in Crl.Appeal No.8/08. Report must reach this Court by 18.02.08. 2. Call on 20.02.08. I make it clear that if no orders are passed on such application, I expect the learned Magistrate to W.P(C).No.3113 of 2008 4 pass appropriate orders before that date. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr/-