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
Sumathi v. Devasan (1991 (1) KLT 453) Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji (1994 (2) KLT 419)
Mohammed v. Koyammu Haji (1989 (1) KLT 317)
Vamanan Nambudiri v. N. Kurup (1964 KLT 516 (F.B)
Bhaskaran v. Ambika (1977 KLT 476)
Alice v. Thommen (1983 KLT 97)
V.T. Thomas is Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd. (1988 (1) KLT 433
A. Venkatasubbiah v S. Chellappan (AIR 2000 S.C. 3032)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.