SUDHA NAIR Vs. VIJAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1 appears through counsel. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) PETITIONER who is not a party to the proceeding in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur (M.C. No.94 of 2011) challenges the order dated 24.11.2010 on C.M.P. No.7889 of 2010 (Ext.P2) as per which learned Magistrate has issued direction to the Sub Inspector of Police to give sufficient protection to respondent No.1 for starting residence in House No.255 in Ward No.II of Kuttoor Panchyat. The Sub Inspector was also directed to file a report after compliance with the order before 03.12.2010. Leaned counsel submits that pursuant to the said order petitioner who was not a party to proceeding has been evicted and she has no house to stay presently. Learned counsel submits that though appeal has been provided under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") that remedy is not available to the petitioner since appeal is provided only for an aggrieved person and petitioner being not a party to the proceeding she is not an 'aggrieved person' as defined in Sec.2(a) of the Act. It is contended by learned counsel that Sec.19 of the Act does not contemplate any such order like Ext.P2. Learned counsel requested interference by this Court with the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that petitioner has already filed an application for impleading in the case in the court below on 13.12.2010 and that application is pending. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 has no objection in petitioner being impleaded in the proceeding.