IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4574 of 2008() ------------------------- MC.100/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ELIZABETH MATHEW, W/O. GEORGE M. MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, 18/52, MULAMOOTIL BUNGALOW, UNNIYOORKONAM(KULASEKHARAM.P.O,)THUMBACODE VILLAGE, THIRUNANTHIKARAI DESOM, KALKULAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA, TAMIL NADU. 2. GEORGE M. MATHEW, S/O.G.M. VARGHESE, AGED 62 YEA4RS, 18/52, MULAMOOTIL BUNGALOW, UNNIYOORKONAM(KULASEKHARAM.P.O,)THUMBACODE VILLAGE, THIRUNANTHIKARAI DESOM, KALKULAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SRI.M.P.RAJU SMT.ANNIE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SMITHA SUSAN THOMAS, D/O. THOMAS SAMUEL, AGED 30 YEARS, PULIMOOTTIL, MAHANIAM, T.C 4/2550-1, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM - KOWDIAR ROAD, PATTOM.P.O, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3. NAVYA ELIZABETH GEORGE,AGED 3 YEARS, D/O. SMITHA SUSAN THOMAS, (MINOR)REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMITHA SUSAN THOMS,AGED 30 YEARS, PULIMOOTTIL, MAHANIAM, T.C 4/2550-1,MARAPPALAM, PATTOM - KOWDIAR ROAD, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4574 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent who is the wife of the son of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent herein is the grand child of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women from (Domestic Violence) Act against her husband and the petitioners herein. The petitioners have come to know of those proceedings. They have also come to know of the ex parte order – interim orders, passed against them by the learned Magistrate in such proceedings. They have come to this Court now with a prayer to quash the proceedings. 2. Did the petitioners go before the learned Magistrate and enter appearance? Did they raise their contentions? Did Crl.M.C. No. 4574 of 2008 -: 2 :- they apply to vacate the interim orders? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners engaged a counsel and the counsel went before court, she was not permitted to appear and she was not permitted to file Vakalath. I am shocked to hear this submission. The petitioners can appear before the court below through their counsel. The counsel can file an application requesting that she may be permitted to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioners. If such an application is filed, the court has to receive the same and pass appropriate orders. 3. I have already held in Gopalakrishna Pillai v. District Superintendent of Police (2008 (3) KLT 80) that when a party files an application, the court has either got to return it to cure defects or rejected it in limine or pass orders on merits either allowing or rejecting the application. Rule of law does not permit the course of the court not receiving and entertaining the application. 4. With the observation that the petitioners can appear through counsel and make appropriate application before the Crl.M.C. No. 4574 of 2008 -: 3 :- learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/