- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ANTO JOSEPH v. LEEMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937 UNNUMB.OPCR.No. 74 of 2016
------------------------------------------- CMP.10622/2015 IN MC 262/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 31-10-2015
------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
ANTO JOSEPH, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.BABU JOSEPH, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE,
KALAMASSERY DEVELOPMENT PLOT P.O.,
NJALAKAM KARA, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
SRI.G.D.PANICKER
RESPONDENT:
---------------------
1. LEEMA NEPOLEAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O.NEPOLEAN, OTTUPARAMPATH HOUSE,
KADAPRA, NIRANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHEEBA M.T.
THIS UNNUMBERED OPCR HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
1
UNNUMB.OPCR.No. 74 of 2016 -------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE
R1
P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 9/12/14
P3: COPY OF THE JOINT DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE
RESPONDENT
P4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
P5: COPY OF THE CMP NO.10622/15 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM THIRUVALLA BY
THE RESPONDENT
P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.10622/15 IN MC.262/15 OF THE JFCM THIRUVALLA DATED 31/1015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
2
P.UBAID, J.
============================
ZOP(Crl) No.74 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 5thday of February, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order against him from the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The interim relief granted to the claimant includes protection order, residence order, and maintenance order. The petitioner's remedy lies under Section 29 of the DV Act. In view of the decision of this Court in Sulochana v. Kuttappan [2007 (2) KLT 1], this original petition is rejected, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal appropriately against the impugned order under Section 29 of the DV Act.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
rkj //TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
3
Alert