Back
R.BASANT
Sulochana – Appellant
Versus
Kuttappan – Respondent
R. Basant, J.
Is an appeal maintainable under S.29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") against an interim exparte order passed under S.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 S.12 of the Act claiming relief under Ss.19 and 20 of the Act. The learned Magistrate passed an exparte interim order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-4, directing the 1 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 exparte 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 thereupon rushed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court after admitting the appeal granted an interim sta
The citation is a composite of "Vide Sulochana v. Kuttappan" and subsequent cases. No contrary treatment is mentioned, and the passage simply cites the earlier decision, indicating that it was followed as authority.
This entry references "Vide Sulochana v. Kuttappan –2007 (2) KLT 1" and simply re‑uses the same holding, signifying reliance on the decision rather than any dissent or reversal.
The statement "see Sulochana ... wherein it was held that an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act would be maintainable" is a direct quote of the original holding, showing that the case is being followed for its legal statement.
Similarly, the excerpt repeats the same holding on Section 29 appeals, confirming continued acceptance of the precedent.
The passage "relied on the decision of this court in Sulochana …" expressly records a case that has been cited to substantiate the scope of the Act, a textbook example of following.
Although the entry provides only "Kuttappan" without further detail, the brevity and context suggest a reference to the earlier Sulochana decision; lacking any contrary language, it is treated as a follow.
The phrase "The decisions in Sulochana and Another v. Kuttappan and Others" signals a general citation of the decision, again implying use as authority rather than criticism.
The case establishes that an appeal is available under S.5(2) of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956. No mention of obstruction or overrule is present, so it is following the holding.
Here the judgment states the correct categorisation of appeals vs. revisions. The passage is a factual declaration of the court's position, indicating that the case is reaffirming its own holding.
The legal point that orders under S.13B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are appealable is asserted—that is the original holding—hence the case is treated as following that principle.
The discussion concerns the liberal construction of appeal provisions and is supportive of the earlier decisions; no contrary treatment is expressed.
The statement that an appeal is only maintainable if it affects rights or liabilities is a reiteration of the standard test; the citation shows follow, not reversal.
The passage clarifies the duration of an injunction under Order 39 Rule 3A and its appealability, and the text shows continued reliance on the court’s prior rule, not a negation of that rule.
The case lists the applicability of R.1 and R.2 to exonereed orders, displaying an interpretative follow of earlier rules without critique.
The entry contains only the name "Kuttappan" with no descriptive text. Because the citation lacks any clear indication that the case is being followed, distinguished, or criticized, its treatment remains ambiguous. It could be a mere reference, but without further context it could not be definitively classified.
While the passage seems to reinforce the court’s earlier decision, the structure of the excerpt merges two distinct points (the non‑restrictiveness of the injunction period and the appealability of an order). The lack of a direct marker showing that the court *applied* the rule rather than *reversed* it creates slight uncertainty. Nevertheless, the absence of any language negating the earlier holding points the analysis toward a "follow" classification, but it is noted as uncertain due to the merged nature of the commentary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
