IMPORTANT POINTS:
" Sec. 28(1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an to dismiss the application under Section 12 or under Section 23(2) of the DV Act.
" The purpose of enacting the DV Act is to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
" A cumulative reading of Section 28(1) r/w Rule 6(5) indicates that in deciding the application under Section 12,the Court has to follow the procedure procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C and thus, record evidence in presence of the parties
" Nothing in Sec. 28(1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an to dismiss the application under Section 12 or under Section 23(2) of the DV Act

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayer in the above captioned Crl.M.C seeks filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned Anenxure-D order dated 23.02.2019 rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura in M.C.No.20/2018 whereby the plea of the petitioner (application for M.C.), for opportunity to adduce the petitioner's evidence by submission of proof affidavit has been denied on the ground that there is no provision in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV) for taking referred to said the procedure.

2. Heard Shri.V.C.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent State and Shri.N.G.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 2 and 3.

3. The petitioner has filed an application as M.C.No.20/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura under the provisions of Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs under sections 18, 20, 22 and 23 of the above said Act (DV Act).

4. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are the respondents in the above M.C. The petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent and the mother of the 3rd respondent (son). Among the various reliefs under the DV Act, petitioner also seeks grant of maintenance. Though the notices has been duly served on the above said respondents in the M.C, they had not turned up and consequently the learned Magistrate had set them ex-parte. Thereafter, petitioner has filed Annexure-C, Ex-parte proof affidavit in the above proceedings so as to adduce the evidence. However, the learned Magistrate by the impugned Annexure-B order dated 22.11.2018 has rejected to accept the said proof affidavit on the ground that there is no provisions in the PWDV Act to accept the proof affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief and accordingly, the proof affidavit was not accepted and the petitioner was directed to adduce the oral evidence. It is this order at Annexure-D that is under challenge in this proceedings. Section 28 of the DV Act reads as follows :

28. Procedure- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23.

5. The Apex Court in the judgment in kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another (2016) 11 SCC 774 has held in paragraph 12 of the said judgment that in fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights of the complaint i.e. aggrieved person. Intention is to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family, as the civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. Eventhough, Sec.498A of the IPC is a criminal offence, the purpose of enacting the DV Act is to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It is for this reason, that the scheme of the Act provides that in the first instance, the order that would be passed by the Magistrate, on a complaint by the aggrieved person, would be of a civil nature and if the said order is violated, it assumes the character of criminality. In paragraph 14 of the Kunapareddy's case, the Apex Court has held that Section 28 of the DV Act gain significance and whereas proceedings under certain sections of the DV Act as specified in Section 28(1) are to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislature at the same time has incorporated the provisions like Section