IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1342 of 2009() ------------------------------------ MC.NO. 209/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- A.SOBHANA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAMOHANAN.J., AISWARYA, VIDYA NAGAR-48, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. VIJAYAMOHANAN.J., AISWARYA, VIDYA NAGAR-48, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1342 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 Order The petitioner filed Annexure 1 application under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam(which was subsequently transferred to JFCM-II, Kollam). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner therein had actually contested the matter and Annexure 2 order was passed by the C.J.M., Kollam on 11.6.2007. It was thereafter the petition was transferred to JFCM-II, Kollam where the case was renumbered as M.C.No.209/08. The impugned Annexure 4 order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 13.5.2009 stating that when the case was called, the petitioner was absent and that she was not represented by anybody. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Advocate who was appearing for the petitioner relinquished the vakkalath on 11.3.2009 and that fact was noticed by the Crl.M.C.1342/09 2 petitioner only on 13.3.2009 when she reached the court on that day. Learned counsel submits that she was in fact making arrangements to engage another counsel and she could not enter the court hall when the case was called because of crowd at the door of the court hall. Whatever that be, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not duly prosecuting the matter. Simply for the reason that the petitioner was absent on 13.3.2009, the petition should not have been dismissed. It is a fit case to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter. Hence, Annexure 4 order is quashed. The parties will appear before JFCM-II, Kollam on 4.5.2011. The petitioner's counsel will communicate a copy of this order to the respondent's counsel showing the posting date in advance. The Crl.M.C is allowed as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.1342/09 3 Crl.M.C.1342/09 4