Dismissed

Xavier Thomas v. Kunjumol

Kerala HC7 Sept 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/762/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Cr.P.C. Section 401 against an interim maintenance order under the PWDV Act, 2005. The court held the revision was not maintainable as the impugned order was appealable under Section 29 of the Act, excluding jurisdiction under Section 401(4) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; liberty granted to preference appeal with condonation of delay.

Xavier Thomas Vs Kunjumol — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 16TH BHADRA 1929

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 762 of 2007()

¶5

----------------------------CMP.409/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,

¶6

NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

XAVIER THOMAS @ SUNNY, PROPRIETOR, ANUPAMA SCANNING CENTRE, GOVT.HOSPITAL JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA, NOW RESIDING AT `VIMAL' NEAR LUTHAR MISSION CHURCH, VAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

KUNJUMOL. C., S/O.CHARIES, MANU COTTAGE, KUDUMBANOOR, PRAVAHAMBALAM, NEMOM.

¶14

MANU XAVIER, 8 YEARS (SON, MANU COTTAGE) KUDUMBANOOR, PRAVAHAMBALAM, NEMOM.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 762 of 2007**

¶20

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, 7**^th September 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The first respondent herein namely Kunhumol moved the Magistrate under Sec. 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act” for short). She also filed C.M.P. 409 of 2007 for an interim mandatory relief by invoking Sections 20 to 22 of the P.W.D.V. Act. As per Annexure D order dated 23-01-2007, the learned Magistrate passed an ad-interim order directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month as maintenance to the first respondent and the child. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision filed under Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.

¶23

When this revision came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is appealable under Sec. 29 of the Act. The objection raised is well founded. Since the impugned order is appealable under Section 29 of the Act this revision is not maintainable in view of Sec. 401 (4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the revision

¶24

Crl.R.P. No. 762 of 2007 -:2:-

¶25

petitioner to prefer an appeal. Eventhough Section 29 does not contemplate the filing of an appeal beyond the period of limitation of 30 days or a power in the Sessions Court to condone the delay, since the appeal is provided to the court of Session, the Limitation Act will automatically apply and the revision petitioner can seek condonation of the delay, if any, in the appeal to be filed.

¶26

With this liberty, this Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶27

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶28

ani.

Xavier Thomas v. Kunjumol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xavier Thomas v. Kunjumol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Reetha Anto Vs Romeo Jacob

C.K.Menon Vs State of Kerala and Others

E.Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Kumarapuram Sasi Vs P.G.Rajankutty

K.Premaleela Vs a.G.Skaria

Mohana Kurup Vs State of Kerala & Another