IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1246 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.632/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM MC.10/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ 1ST RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------------------ SURENDRAN @ THAMPI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN ASARI, RAVI VILASOM, CHAVADI MUKKU, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT AND STATE/APPLICANT AND STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYLAKUMARI T.S., D/O. SAVITHRI, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ILAMBA, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1246 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who is the 1st respondent in M.C. No. 10 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the interim order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Magistrate under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directing the revision petitioner not to commit any act of domestic violence against his wife (applicant) and directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the wife and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the minor child from the date of petition. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 632 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the order passed by the Magistrate has been confirmed. Hence this revision. Crl.R.P. No. 1246/2010 : 2 : 2. The order of the Magistrate is an interim order passed in M.C. No. 10 of 2009 and the contentions of the petitioner on the merits of the case can be considered by the Magistrate while finally disposing of the M.C filed under Section 12 of the said Act. I see no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below except to direct the Magistrate to dispose of M.C No. 10 of 2009 expeditiously and untramelled by the observations made by the lower appellate court in the Crl. Appeal. This revision is accordingly dismissed . Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 1246/2010 : 3 :