IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 101 of 2008() ------------------------ ST.376/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT -------------------------- RANIL, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SATHYA MANDIRAM, KARAPPURAM (P.O), EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. VINEETHA CHANDRAN, D/O.VIJAYAN NAIR, KALATHILPARAMBIL VEEDU, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 101 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in S.T. No. 376/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad, challenges the order dated 03.11.2007 passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner and issuing notice to the sureties. The petitioner was the 1st counter petitioner in a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (“the Act” for short). As per Annexure-1 ex parte order dated 08.05.2007 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of the order. On coming to know of the said order the petitioner is alleged to have deposited Rs.3000/- before the Magistrate and preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha under Section 29 of the Act as Appeal No. 392.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal has been finally heard and has been taken for orders by the Sessions Court, Alapuzha. In the mean while, for the alleged disobedience of the ex parte order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 31(1) of the Act and had registered a case as S.T. No. 376/2007. On receiving CRL. M.C. NO. 101/2008 : 2 : notice in that case the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed Annexure-2 petition alleging non compliance of the ex parte order and prayed for cancellation of the bail. Even though the petitioner filed objection to Annexure 2 petition contending inter alia that he had not violated the conditions imposed while he was enlarged on bail and also appraised the Magistrate about the pendecy of the appeal filed by him against the ex parte order, the Magistrate has cancelled the bail bond and has issued notice to the sureties. In view of the aforesaid factual background, the only order which is called for is to permit the petitioner to again seek bail before the Magistrate on deposit of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) towards arrears of maintenance. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate within two weeks from today and files an application for bail and also deposits a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupes six thousand only) towards arrears of maintenance, he shall be released on bail on appropriate conditions and subject of course to the result of S.T. No. 376/2007. This Crl. M.C. is disposed of accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 101/2008 : 3 :