DILEEP Vs. SWAPNA DILEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in M.C.36/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad, filed this O.P under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order of the learned Magistrate by which the learned Magistrate ordered to restore the M.C. which was dismissed for default. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank in the M.C.)

(2.) The petitioners filed the above M.C. under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short, the D.V.Act). Ext.P1 is the copy of the said petition. As per Ext.P3 order dtd. 30/9/2024, the learned Magistrate dismissed Ext.P1 on the ground that despite several chances given, the petitioners did not turn up for adducing evidence. The petitioners preferred Ext.P4 application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC praying for restoring the M.C. The respondents filed Ext.P5 objection stating that the Magistrate has no review power. Overruling the objection raised by the respondents, the learned Magistrate allowed Ext.P4, as per Ext.P6 order holding that being a welfare legislation, the proceedings under Sec. 12 of the D.V.Act should be liberally construed. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order the 1 st respondent preferred this O.P.

(3.) Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the Magistrate has got the authority to restore a petition under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed for default?