A wife sought a High Court direction to accept her pending petition for interim maintenance in an ongoing domestic violence maintenance case, alleging the Magistrate refused it. After a Magistrate's report showed evidence had commenced and the main case was being expedited, the High Court dismissed the original petition as unwarranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.142 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,VADAKARA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
USHA K., AGED 54 YEARS
D/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR,
KUNHOLI MEETHAL 'PADMAM',
ATHIYODI P.O. CHERUKKAD,
KAYANNA, KOYILANDY,
KOYILANDY TALUK ., PIN – 673 527.
BY ADVS.
C.BHASKARAN
ARJUN C BHASKAR
VISHNU C. BHASKAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :
MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR,
KALARIKKAL, "VANDANA" V.O. ROAD,
VADAKARA, VADAKARA AMSOM DESOM,
VADAKARA TALUK, PIN – 673 104.
SMT.SREEJA V., PP
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......….............................................
…................................................
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for a direction to accept Ext.P4 petition and pass
an order after hearing the petitioner in a time bound manner. Ext.P4 is a petition seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.40,000/-.
Ext.P4 petition was attempted to be handed over, the learned Magistrate refused to accept the same, and therefore, this original petition has been preferred.
by the petitioner and the contentions urged, the same are
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
3
extracted below:
The MC.No.142/2022 was filed on 20.12.2022. On that day itself an ad interim ex- parte protection order and residence order has been passed against the respondent. In that CMP this court has issued emergent notice to the respondent and the case was posted for hearing on 24.12.2022.
On 24.12.2022 the petitioner was absent and there was no representation for the petitioner. The respondent appeared through his counsel, filed vakkalath and the matter was posted to 16.01.2023 for the appearance of respondent as well as for filing his counter.
Thereafter, on 16.01.2023, the petitioner was present and respondent filed counter in MC as well CMP.No. 5346/2022 and on the same day itself respondent filed another petition seeking cancellation of the interim order passed in CMP.No.5346/2022 and the same was numbered as CMP No.3821/2023.
Thereafter, the case was posted for hearing at the request from both parties on consecutive dates such as 13.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 03.04.2023, 22.05.2023 and 05.06.2023. Thereafter, on 19.06.2023 the petitioner has filed counter in CMP.No.3821/2023 and the case was posted for hearing both CMP No.5346/2023 and CMP.3821/2023 on 24.07.2023. On that day there was no sitting, hence the case was notified and reposted to 14.08.2023.
On 14.08.2023, both petitioner and respondent were present and heard the above CMP. 5346/2022 and 3821/2023. On going through the rival contention in both interim application this court find that a detailed enquiry is necessary for better adjudication in that matter. Hence, CMP.No.3821/2023 and 5346/2022 posted for consideration
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
4
along with main petition and to dispose the MC expeditiously the case was posted for petitioner's evidence. Thereafter, on 18.09.2023 and 09.10.2023 the petitioner was continuously absent for adducing evidence hence the case was posted for recording evidence of the petitioner on 20.11.2023 . On 20.11.2023 the petitioner was present and produced certain documents but she was not ready to adduce evidence and sought time for filing proof affidavit. So, at the request of the petitioner, the case was posted for evidence on 27.11.2023.
On 27.11.2023, the petitioner was present and filed proof affidavit. She was examined as PW1, Ext. P1 and P2 were marked and the cross examination was adjourned for want of time. Thereafter the petitioner absent on consecutive posting dates such as on 15.01.2024 and 26.02.2024. Now the case is posted for cross examination of PW1 as last chance on 25.03.2024.
It is humbly submitted that this court has not committed any willful neglect or latches to dispose the above CMP.No.5346/2022. This court has made all earnest effort to dispose the main petition itself considering the rival serious contention raised by both parties.
The above facts are respectfully submitted.
is alleged to have been filed after evidence of PW1, and when it was posted for cross examination. Considering the circumstances arising in the instant case, I am of the view that a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 petition after accepting it, is unwarranted,
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
5
especially since, the evidence in the maintenance case has already
commenced.
costs, I refrain from doing so, considering the fact that the
petitioner is a destitute wife.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
AMV/06/03/2024
OP(CRL.) NO. 68 OF 2024
6
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 68/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER
SECTION 12 OF THE THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 DATED
20/12/2022.
EXHIBIT P2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
20/12/2022.
EXHIBIT P3A CERTIFIED COPY OF FILED A COUNTER IN
RESPONSE TO THE INTERIM APPLICATION
AGAINST INTERIM MONETARY RELIEF.
EXHIBIT P4A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION, SYMBOLIZING
THE PETITIONER'S EARNEST EFFORT TO SEEK
INTERIM MONETARY RELIEF.
TRUE COPY
2 issues framed by the court
Should the court direct acceptance of Ext.P4 petition seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- and its disposal after hearing in time bound manner?
Was the Magistrate's refusal to accept the interim maintenance petition justified given evidence had commenced?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Usha K.
Manoj Kumar
Bechu Kurian Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court