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

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
Shanida vs Mohammed Abdul Salim on 19 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1705 of 2007(C)


1. SHANIDA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. HUSSAIN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHAMMED ABDUL SALIM, AGED 29 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J

                             ----------------------

                         W.P.C .No.1705 of 2007

                       ----------------------------------------

              Dated this the  19th day of February   2007




                                  O R D E R

The petitioner has come to this court with the grievance that Protection Officers, as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005) having not been appointed, the same is causing great prejudice and loss to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate is not taking the necessary steps to get the notice served on the first respondent for the reason that Protection Officer has not been appointed. It was with that grievance that the petitioner had come to this court. A report has been called for from the learned Magistrate and the report has been received.

2. In the meantime, it is submitted that Protection Officers have been appointed and the said grievance does not survive. Report of the learned Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate entertains serious doubts as to whether the petition is maintainable and he wants the matter to be heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced arguments in part, it is mentioned.

W.P.C.No.1705/07 2

3. I am of the opinion that the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and advance arguments on the question of maintainability raised by the learned Magistrate. I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the question on which the learned Magistrate wants the matter to be heard.

The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and advance his arguments whereupon the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate decision in the matter. It is reported by the learned Magistrate that the matter stands posted to 02/03/2007.

The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and make his submissions on that date.

4. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.1705/07 3 W.P.C.No.1705/07 4 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006 W.P.C.No.1705/07 6 I am satisfied that notice need not be issued to the first respondent. Now, considering the question raised, the learned Government Pleader takes notice to the second respondent. He shall take instructions. It shall be reported specifically to this court whether Protection Officer has been appointed to discharge his functions within the jurisdiction of the Kunnamangalam Police Station. Take instructions.

Call on 22/01/2007.