Only exceptional circumstances allow appeals under Section 29 against interim orders issued under the DV Act, maintaining focus on the procedural integrity of enforcement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the petitioner in CMP 7218 of 2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. It is a proceeding brought under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). The first respondent in the said proceeding is her own son, and the second respondent is the daughter- in-law. The petitioner had earlier filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam under the DV Act, but for some reasons she decided not to prosecute it, and brought another application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. In the said proceeding, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an interim order under Section 23 of the DV Act in CMP No.178 of 2015. Aggrieved by the said interim order of protection, the respondents herein brought a criminal appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the Court of Session as Crl. Appeal No.82 of 2015. The respondents made an application for stay of execution of the interim order. Accordingly, interim stay was granted by the Court of Session, but later it expired. In such a situation, the petitioner herein filed an application for execution before the trial court as CMP No.2412 of 2015. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate passed an order in enforcement of the interim order earlier passed. Ext.P5 is the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents again preferred another Crl.Appeal before the Court of Session as Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2015. The petitioner seeks orders quashing the said criminal appeal on the ground that the said appeal cannot be maintained, and that the remedy available to the respondents is only to seek stay of execution in the first appeal brought by them.

2. On hearing both sides in detail, and on a perusal of the materials including the impugned orders, I find that Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2015 brought by the respondents cannot proceed. They have already brought an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, challenging the interim order passed by the Court under Section 23 of the DV Act. Even as regards interim orders passed under , this Court has settled the position that such an appeal can be entertained under of the DV Act only in exceptional circumstances, because such an order is always subject to appropriate modifications, and also subject to the final orders to be passed in the main proceeding. When that is the position as regards interim orders enforceable under the law, nothing need be stated as regards a mere procedural order in execution. In short, such procedural order in execution cannot be the subject matter of an appeal under of the DV Act. The respondents had earlier obtained an order of stay, but unfortunately it is expired without being extended. The learned Magistrate passed orders in execution when there was no stay from the appellate court. In such a situation, the remedy available to the respondents is to approach the appellate court itself in the appeal, and obtain necessary stay orders. If appeal, one after the other, is entertained by the appellate court under section 29 of the DV Act against any interim order passed, that will create an unpleasant situation of unending legal battles. What is under challenge in the first appeal is an enforceable order, which is subject to modification or cancellation appropriately. Anyway, let that appeal proceed, and let appropriate decision be taken by the learned appellate judge. However, as regards Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2015 this Court finds that it will have to be quashed because, the impugned order therein is not amenable to appeal under of the DV Act, and the remedy available to the respondents against the said impugned order in execution is only to approach the appellate court itself, and apply for extension of stay.

In the result, this original petition is allowed. Accordingly the whole proceedings in the Court of Session, Ernakulam in Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2015 will stand quashed, without prejudice to