Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
Section 29 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Chithrangathan vs Seema on 4 September, 2007
P.Chamdrasekhara Pillai vs Valsala Chandran on 27 February, 2007
Sulochana And Anr. vs Kuttappan And Ors. on 27 February, 2007

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
Girijan vs Subhadra on 25 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19032 of 2008(N)


1. GIRIJAN, S/O.LATE CHAKALAPARAMBIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUBHADRA, D/O.LATE CHAKALAPARAMBIL
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE K.KOCHUPAPPU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :25/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                    W.P.C.No.19032 of 2008
                   ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 25th day of June 2008

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the respondent in a proceedings initiated under 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005' by his sister. He has suffered Ext.P2 interim order. Though the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 29 of 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act' which order is appealable under Section 29 of that Act, the petitioner instead of adopting that course has come directly to this court to challenge the impugned order as also the proceedings initiated. The position is now well settled by the decisions in Sulochana v. Kuttappan [2007(2) KLT 1] and Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Valsala Chandran [2007(2) KLT 36] as also Chithrangathan v. Seema [2007 (4) KLT 424] that an order passed is appealable under Section 29. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the prayer to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the proceedings.

W.P.C.No.19032/08 2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations are untrue and that specific allegations raised relate to a pre-Act period. I am of the opinion that all these contentions must be raised before the Appellate/Sessions Court in a properly instituted appeal under Section 29 of 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act' and it is not necessary for this court to entertain this writ petition against an order which is appealable under law.

3. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the appellate court with an appeal under Section 29 of 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act'.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.19032/08 3 W.P.C.No.19032/08 4 R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007