Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

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
Mrs.Bindhu.T.D. vs M.P.Padmanabhan on 4 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7363 of 2008(B)


1. MRS.BINDHU.T.D., WIFE OF PADMANABHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.P.PADMANABHAN, MADAVANA HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/03/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.

           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                W.P.(C) No. 7363 OF 2008 B
           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
            Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She has filed an application under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the respondent. Relief has been claimed in respect of custody of two children born in the wedlock. The petition was filed on 28.12.07 by the petitioner. It was adjourned to 3.1.08 and later to 24.1.08. The respondent entered appearance on that day and thereafter the case was posted to 31.1.08 and 7.2.08. Objections have been filed. But the learned Magistrate had adjourned the case to 2.4.08. As the relief claimed relates to custody of the children, the learned CJM was of the opinion that the change of atmosphere at present is likely to affect the mental alertness and peace of mind of the children to attend and face the examination. It was hence directed that the petition may be WPC.7363/08 : 2 : kept in abeyance till the examinations are over. The case is posted to 2.4.08.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that her petition is not being disposed of unnecessarily.

3. I am unable to take the view that the learned Magistrate's order is incorrect or perverse. The learned Magistrate, to me, appears to be perfectly justified in taking the view that if the custody of the children were to be disturbed, such orders need not be passed till 2.4.08. But, certain procedures can be completed by 2.4.08 without insisting on the personal presence of the children before court. Their personal presence, if necessary, need be insisted only after 2.4.08.

4. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate to expeditiously complete the proceedings. The decision of the learned Magistrate that the custody of the children need not WPC.7363/08 : 3 : be disturbed till 2.4.08 is upheld. The learned Magistrate shall expeditiously complete the proceedings. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. The learned Magistrate shall advance the hearing of the case if necessary and ensure expeditious disposal.

5. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate along with his application to advance the hearing.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks