LISSY GEORGE Vs. JELIN J.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this original petition was instituted, Registry entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the original petition, and the matter was accordingly placed before the court for a decision on the said issue.

(2.) The petitioner in the original petition is the petitioner in an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Act) before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattakada. An interim order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the application initially restraining the first respondent, the respondent in the application from committing any act of domestic violence and also restraining him from disturbing the peaceful residence of the petitioner in the house referred to in the application. On receipt of notice, the first respondent entered appearance and filed objections. Later, the petitioner has filed a chief affidavit in the matter in lieu of evidence. It is stated that though the petitioner was present on several occasions before the court thereafter, for want of time, the matter was not taken up. Later, on a day on which the petitioner could not be present on account of a mistake committed by her counsel in noting down the posting of the case, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on merits. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in this connection is impugned in the original petition.

(3.) Section 29 of the Act provides for appeal against orders passed under the Act. The doubt entertained by the Registry is as to whether an original petition would lie when the petitioner is entitled to challenge the impugned order in an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.