The prayer in the above captioned Crl.M.C seeks filed

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

impugned Annxure-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 2^nd respondent and

the mother of the 3^rd 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

4

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 Vs. 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

5

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