Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
Section 29 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
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
Lalji Prabhakaran vs Sujatha Prabhakaran on 27 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 706 of 2008()


1. LALJI PRABHAKARAN, AGED 35 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUJATHA PRABHAKARAN
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I. OF POLICE

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.RESHMI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :27/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                    V. RAMKUMAR , J.

                     ==========================

                              CRL.M.C. No. 706 of 2008

                     ==========================

                     Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008.


                                         O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the son of the 1st respondent herein, was the respondent in M.P. No. 519/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, N. Paravur which was a petition filed under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per Annexure 4 order dated 06.02.2008, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to vacate the shared household within 10 days from the date of the order. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Crl.Appeal No. 123/2008 under Section 29 of the said Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that notice alone has been ordered on Annexure 5 petition for stay.

2. The only order which is called for in this Crl.M.C is to direct the Sessions Court, Ernakulam to dispose of the above appeal expeditiously as soon as the 1st respondent herein enters appearance in the matter. In case the Sessions Judge has reason to believe that the 1st respondent herein namely Sujatha Prabhakaran is indulging in evasive tactics, that court may consider the passing of an interim order in the stay petition. This Crl.M.C is disposed of directing the Sessions Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv