Dismissed

Vilasini v. Vijayamma

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008Crl.MC/857/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interlocutory order dismissing a Criminal Misc. Case challenging a Magistrate's order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which restrained obstruction. The Court exercised jurisdiction to dismiss the challenge but reserved contentions regarding the eligibility of an adult male as a respondent under Section 12 and the filing of duplicate applications for the p

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case dismissing the Magistrate's restraining order was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to raise statutory interpretation contentions in the appeal before the S

Vilasini Vs Vijayamma — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 857 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------CMP.2246/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

VILASINI,W/O.RAGHAVAN KOTTACHIRAYIL HOUSE, PALLIPRATHISSERI P.O. MANNATHANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS: STATE

¶12

¶13

VIJAYAMMA SABU @ RAMA W/O. SABU, GOKULAM HOUSE NADAKKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

STATE REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.857 of 2008

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2008 ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in Crl.M.P.No.561 of 2008 in C.M.P.No.2246 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, challenges the order dated 15.02.08 passed by the Magistrate restraining the respondents to the said CMP from obstructing the applicant- Vijayamma Sabu (1^st respondent herein) from residing in the shared household mentioned in the petition.

¶21

The main contention of the petitioner is that an adult male person can alone be a respondent to a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She further contends that claiming identical reliefs, the 1^st respondent herein has filed two other applications.

¶22

Annexure G order is an order which is appealable under Section 29 of the said Act and the petitioner is free to raise all the contentions, including the aforementioned arguments before the Appellate Court, namely the Sessions Court concerned. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all those contentions before the Appellate Court, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.

¶23

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. of 2008

¶26

Vilasini v. Vijayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilasini v. Vijayamma

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

Shamsudin Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Keala

Poovannur Edakkatil Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Suresh & Others Vs State of Kerala

C.N.Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

C.N.Prabhukaran Vs Rajan