LATHA.P.C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters relate to one and the same proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (the Act), and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in Crl.M.C.No.7977 of 2018.

(2.) The second respondent is the wife of the third respondent and the petitioners are the mother and sister respectively of the third respondent. The marriage between the second respondent and the third respondent was solemnized on 18.11.2005 and they have a child aged nine years. The second respondent instituted M.C.No.28 of 2017 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg under Section 12 of the Act, against the petitioners and the third respondent. Annexure-AI is the application preferred by the second respondent in this regard. It is alleged by the second respondent in Annexure A1, among others, that the petitioners had taken away her gold ornaments on the very first day of her marriage; that the petitioners have been ill treating her thereafter with the support of the third respondent; that the petitioners and the third respondent did not extend to her any care or protection while she was carrying; that the petitioners and the third respondent were indifferent towards her even after she delivered the child; that the petitioners and the third respondent used to humiliate her parents and that the third respondent is providing only paltry amount for her sustenance. The reliefs sought in the proceedings on the said allegations include orders prohibiting the petitioners and the third respondent from committing acts of domestic violence, orders directing the petitioners and the third respondent to return the gold ornaments, orders directing the third respondent to pay maintenance and to provide alternative accommodation to the second respondent, orders restraining the third respondent from alienating his properties etc. The case set out by the petitioners in the Crl.M.C is that the facts disclosed in the application do not make out a case of domestic violence as defined under the Act and the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the court liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code).

(3.) O.P.(Crl)No.234 of 2019 is one instituted by the second respondent stating, among others, that after service of notice on the petitioners and the third respondent, the court below passed an interim order in the proceedings on 14.2.2018, directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the child towards their maintenance; that Ext.P3 order has so far not been complied with by the third respondent, and that nevertheless, further action is not being taken by the court in view of the interim order passed by this court staying the further proceedings in Annexure A1 application. The second respondent, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for enforcement of the interim order passed by the court on 14.2.2018 and for disposal of Annexure A1 application finally within a time limit.