Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code

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. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
Vinod M. vs Namitha on 11 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3016 of 2008()


1. VINOD M.S/O. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANOJ, S/O. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
3. REMADEVI, W/O. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
4. DEEPTHI, D/O. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
5. DEEPA, W/O. MANOJ, AGED 26 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. NAMITHA, D/O. N.VIJAYAKUMAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. NEELAKANTA PILLAI,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/08/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008

                                  ORDER

Petitioners are the husband of the 1st respondent and his relatives. The 1st respondent, through her father-the 2nd respondent, had filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the said petition on file as M.C.No.4 of 2008. Notice has been served on the petitioners. The petitioners have already appeared before the learned C.J.M, Thodupuzha. They have now come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.

2. What is the ground ? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised are totally false and are vexatious. The couple had lived together only for about 9 days. They have started living separately and such separate residence is not attributable to any fault on the part of the 1st petitioner husband or his relatives. She is unwilling to cohabit. With the only purpose of causing vexation and harassment to the Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2008 2 petitioners, proceedings have been initiated before various authorities against the petitioners. A petition for divorce is pending before the Family Court. A prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C has already been launched. A complaint has been filed before the police. It is in addition to all these that the present petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is filed by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent, her father. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs is prayed for in such petition. There is also a prayer for restoration of 94 sovereigns of gold ornaments which are allegedly retained by the respondents.

3. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify such invocation. The mere fact that the adversary makes an assertion that the allegations are false is by itself no reason to prematurely terminate the proceedings by invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Disputed questions of fact cannot obviously be attempted to be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2008 3

4. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or credibility of the data relied upon. Suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, I find no reason to sail to the conclusion that the proceedings are vexatious or that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 deserves to be prematurely terminated by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The petitioners have a further grievance that the learned C.J.M is unnecessarily insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioners who include the mother in law and two sisters in law. It is submitted that unnecessary insistence on such personal appearance is causing vexation and hardship to the petitioners.

6. I fail to understand how, why and under what circumstances such personal appearance is insisted by the learned C.J.M. It is trite that even though proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are initiated before a criminal court, the relief claimed is essentially and in its core, civil in nature. Evidently in the interests of Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2008 4 expedition, the Parliament has thought it fit to entrust the responsibility of operating the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the criminal adjudicatory structure. But that cannot evidently mean that the personal presence of the petitioners can, should, ought to or must be insisted by the learned Magistrate. If they do not appear and are not represented before the learned C.J.M, the worst consequence is only an exparte order. Unless their personal appearance is found to be necessary for any specific purpose and without specifying that specif purpose, the learned Magistrate should not insist on the personal presence of the petitioner. Ordinary on all dates of posting, they shall be permitted to appear through a counsel.

7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the proceedings.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-