MAVELITHARAYIL PHILIP JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the respondent in MC No.17/2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court V, Thiruvananthapuram in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act initiated by the respondent herein. After the appearance of the revision petitioner, he raised objections regarding the maintainability of the MC on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as well as on facts. Three separate applications were pending consideration. Two applications CMP No.1941/2016 and CMP No.1936/2016 were filed by the respondent herein. They were heard along with CMP No.1990(a)/2016 filed by the revision petitioner requesting the court to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. By a common order, the court below granted relief holding that the court had jurisdiction.

(2.) This common order was carried in appeal by the revision petitioner. The appellate court set aside the common order and remanded the matter to the court below for fresh consideration, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of that judgment. The appellate court directed the court below to consider the applications after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent to lead such evidence as they may choose.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that, though the appellate court had left open all the issues and remanded the matter to the court below, the appellate court had not specifically mentioned that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be considered as a preliminary issue. The further contention of the learned counsel was that, though the lower appellate court arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner had a specific case that he had advanced arguments only in relation to the territorial jurisdiction before the trial court, the court proceeded to pass orders on all the three applications. This was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, contending that the attempt of the revision petitioner was to have a piece meal determination of the issue involved and to drag the proceedings to the prejudice of the respondent, who is left without any relief at present.