SULOCHANA Vs. KUTTAPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is an appeal maintainable under section 29 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against an interim ex parte order passed under Section 23 of the act This crucial question is to be decided in this Crl. M. C. The parties are being referred to in this order in the manner in which they are ranked before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioners - mother and her child, had approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 12 of the Act claiming relief under Sections 19 and 20 of the act. The learned Magistrate passed an exparte interim order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-4, directing the 1st respondent/alleged husband to allow the petitioners to reside in his house and restraining him from causing any disturbance to the peaceful residence of the petitioners in that house. There was also a further ex pane interim direction that the 1st respondent must pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,250/- per mensem to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. That order was passed on 01-01-2007. The respondents there upon rushed to the Sessions court and the Sessions Court after admitting the appeal granted an interim stay. Copy of that order is produced as Annexure-6. The order of the Magistrate was suspended on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below within a period of one month from the date of the said order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no appeal under Section 29 is at all maintainable against an interim ex parte order passed under Section 23. In these circumstances, he contends that the entertainment of the appeal by the learned sessions Judge is not legal and justified.