IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 776 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.151/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------ VELAYUDHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KADAKURISSI, KANNANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KRISHNAKUMARI, D/O.CHELLAN, AGED 33 YEARS, ULLATTIKKAL HOUSE, ETHANUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 776 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 10-04-2008 ORDER Petitioner was the second counter petitioner in Crl.M.P. 151 of 2008 filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the J.F.C.M.III, Palakkad under Sec. 12 read with Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He challenges Aannexure 6 order dated 12-3-2008 as per which the learned magistrate has inter alia directed the counter petitioners (5 in number inlcuding the petitioner) to provide accommodation in House No. 1/258 of Kannadi Panchayath and making it convenient to the 2nd respondent herein to prepare food and her primary needs. The petitioner was admittedly a party to the said order. He cannot get the complaint quashed by filing a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. I could understand the position if the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings. Here the petitioner is the 2nd counter petitioner in the impugned order. His remedy lies under Sec. 29 of the said Act. The remedy is by way of appeal to the court of Session within 30 days. The contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent cannot exercise any right over the house in question which exclusively belongs to the petitioner and which Crl.M.C. No. 776 of 2008 -:2:- contention is sought to be buttressed by relying on the decision reported in S. R . Batra v. Tharuna Batra - 2007 (3) SCC 169 is also a contention available to the petitioner in the statutory appeal. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Magistrate dated 12-3-2008, this M.C. is closed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.