Dismissed

Dr.Shyla , v. Salam

Kerala HC10 Mar 2022RP/255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition was dismissed for lack of error apparent on the face of the record as no notice was required for the limited order of early disposal. The court rejected the plea for extending the disposal deadline fixed for the underlying magisterial case, affirming the lower court's liberty to seek extension.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed; the learned Magistrate was given liberty to seek extension of time for disposal of M.C.No.153/2018 if necessary.

Dr.Shyla , Vs Salam — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 255 OF 2022

¶6

(TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2021 IN O.P.(CRL)

¶7

NO.328/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 DR.SHYLA , AGED 40 YEARS D/O. SIRAJUDEEN, THAJ MANSION, VALEL, KANNAMBALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 691 009. 2 FATHIMA JALEEL, AGED 20 YEARS D/O. SHYLA, THAJ MANSION, VALEL, KANNAMBALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 691 009, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER. 3 MARIYAM, AGED 12 YEARS D/O. SHYLA, THAJ MANSION, VALEL, KANNAMBALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DIST. PIN 691 009, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER. 4 TAMAR MALLIK, AGED 10 YEARS S/O. SHYLA, THAJ MANSION, VALEL, KANNAMBALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DIST., PIN 691 009, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER. BY ADVS. S.JUSTUS S.SAJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8:

¶11

1 SALAM, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADAPPU DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687, NOW RESIDING AT KAIPAMANGALAM P.O, THRISSUR DIST.

¶12

R.P.No.255/2022 in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021

¶13

¶14

2 SHAHILA, AGED 46 YEARS W/O. SALAM, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADAPPU DESOM, CHENTRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687, NOW RESIDING AT KAIPAMANGALAM P.O, THRISSUR DIST.

¶15

3 DR. JALEEL, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADPPU DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687

¶16

4 HILAL, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADPPU DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687

¶17

5 AYISHA BEEVI, AGED 73 YEARS W/O. ABDULLA, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADPPU DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687

¶18

6 NISAR, S/O. ABDULLA, MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBADPPU DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINI P.O, KODUNGALLOOR, PIN 680 687

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

09.03.2022, THE COURT ON 10.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R.P.No.255/2022 in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021

¶22

¶23

M.R.ANITHA, J

¶24

****************** R.P.No.255 of 2022

¶25

in O.P.(Crl) No.328 of 2021

¶26

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2022

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This review petition has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021 seeking to review the judgment dated 27.10.2021 in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021. O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021 has

¶29

been filed seeking for an early disposal of M.C.No.153/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad. The review petitioners are the petitioners in M.C.No.153/2018 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to review petitioners, as per the judgment dated 27.10.2021 in O.P.(Crl) No.328 of 2021, this Court directed

¶30

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad to dispose of M.C.No.53/2018 within a period of six months from the date of

¶31

R.P.No.255/2022 in

¶32

O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021

¶33

¶34

receipt of a copy of the above judgment. The grievance of the review petitioners is that they were not issued with notice of the above O.P.(Crl) and hence they seek to review the judgment dated 27.10.2021 and dismiss the O.P.(Crl).

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021 is also present and both sides were heard.

¶36

According to the learned counsel, evidence is not yet started and review petitioners want more time for collecting documents and witnesses to prove the transactions in M.C.No.153/2018 and hence it is requested that the time for disposal of M.C.No.153/2018 may be extended.

¶37

It is true that no notice was issued to the review petitioners before passing judgment in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021. But the limited prayer in the O.P was for an early disposal of M.C.No.153/2018. In view of the same, a report was called for from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad and the learned Magistrate sought for six months time for final disposal of M.C.No.153/2018. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned

¶38

R.P.No.255/2022 in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021

¶39

¶40

Magistrate to dispose of M.C.No.153/2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. If at all the learned Magistrate requires more time for disposal of the M.C, it is open for the said court to seek for extension of time for disposal of the case. So, the present prayer of the learned counsel seeking to extend the time fixed by this Court cannot be allowed. In effect, there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the judgment in O.P.(Crl) No.328/2021 dated 27.10.2021. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed with liberty to the learned Magistrate to seek for extension of time, if necessary, for disposal of M.C.No.153/2018.

¶41

(sd/-) M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE

¶42

jsr

¶43

True Copy

¶44

PS to Judge

Dr.Shyla , v. Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Shyla , v. Salam

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

Jayesh Vs Aji Vrghese

Amina Umma Vs Shifad P.U.

M.T.Thomas Vs M.K.Sajimon

K.v.Jacob Vs Peter

Shefeek Vs Bitto Abraham

Eldho Mathew Vs Deepu Mohanan