SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
MARY CHACKO – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NAVEEN THOMAS, SHRI.KORAH JOY
For the Respondents:

O R D E R

Annexure-A3 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kothamangalam, in CMP No.5089/2024 in M.C.No.22/2022 is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (in short, ‘ BNSS ’). As per the above order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioner, who is the respondent in that M.C., filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005, to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. The reason stated by the learned Magistrate is that, other than a bald statement that some material facts were omitted to be asked to PW1 during cross-examination, nothing had been there in the petition to show the requirements for further examination of that witness. The learned Magistrate quoted the dictum laid down by this Court in Bibin Sabu @ Abi v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (4) KHC 681 ] for the dismissal of the above petition.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the reason for re-opening the case for further evidence was argued, but it was not mentioned in the petition since it should not be understood by the other side, which will e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top