BY AD v. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Outcome
Dismissed
in accordance with law, this Original Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to act in accordance with law against Ext.P3, before the appropriate court in accordance with law, this Original Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, if in case any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (PP) THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CRL.) NO. 136 OF 2024 3 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== OP(Crl.)No. 136 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 13th day of February, 2024 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the order dated 22.12.2023 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O), Ernakulam in C.M.P.No.7993/2023 in M.C. No.24/2023. As per the impugned order issued under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the petitioners herein have been restrained from committing domestic violence and are also restrained from communicating with the respondents in any manner or from entering the residence and place of work of 1st respondent and even the 2nd respondent’s school.
Sri. Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that Ext.P3 order had been obtained without divulging the entire facts, including the order of the Family Court in I.A.2/2023 in O.P.No.2284/2022, which was an order inter parties. The impugned order is liable to be set aside as it militates against the order of the Family Court, contended the learned counsel.
Considering the nature of the order that I propose to issue OP(CRL.) NO. 136 OF 2024 4 notices to respondents are dispensed with.
The impugned order is an ex-parte protection order issued under the Domestic Violence Act. Though, there seems to be an apparent conflict between Ext.P3 as well as Ext.P5, at least as regards some of the directions, I am of the view that, the petitioners have an effective remedy before the same court that issued Ext.P3 order or before the appellate court under Section 29 of the Act. Since effective remedies are available to the petitioners, it is necessary that they take recourse to such remedies rather than to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Operative part
Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to act in accordance with law against Ext.P3, before the appropriate court in accordance with law, this Original Petition is dismissed. Needless to mention, if in case any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered by the appropriate court in accordance with law without delay. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE OP(CRL.) NO. 136 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 136/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.7993/2023 IN THE FILE OF HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EO) COURT, ERNAKULAM THE TRUE COPY OF MC NO.24/2023 IN THE FILE OF HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EO) COURT, ERNAKULAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 22/12/2023 IN C.MP NO. 7993/2023 IN MC NO.24/2023 IN THE FILE OF HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EO) COURT, ERNAKULAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS DATED 05/11/2022 IN ECOURTS WEBSITE SHOWING THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM PERMITTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO INTERACT WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14/11/2023 THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA NO. 2/2023 IN OPNO.2284/2022
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: in accordance with law, this Original Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 23(2); Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.