Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY201425TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 380 of 2013 ----------------------- AGAINST MC422012 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. VIJESH P.K, AGED32YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA KURUPU, THANANL HOUSE, PEEDIKAKKANDI, CHINGAPURAM.
2. GOVINDA KURUPU, AGED72YEARS, THANANL HOUSE, PEEDIKAKKANDI, CHINGAPURAM.
3. KARTHYAYANI, W/O.GOVINDA KURUPU, -DO- -DO- 4. BINDU, AGED35YEARS, W/O.VINAYAN, PULIKKACHALIL HOUSE, KOONAMVALLIKKAVE, MEPPAYYUR.
5. VINAYAN, S/O.CHATHUKKUTTI, PULIKKACHALIL HOUSE, KOONAMVALLIKKAVE, MEPPAYYUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------ 1. DIVYA,, AGED23YEARS, D/O.SADANADAN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, VILAYATTUR, IRINGATH.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.A.J.JOSE AEDAIODI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 380 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION MC NO.42/2012 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT PAYYOLI UNDER SECTION12OF DV ACT. ANNEXURE B- THE INTERIM ORDER
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT PAYYOLI IN CMP NO.797 OF2012 ANNEXURE C- THE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL MC NO.74/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT VADAKARA. ANNEXURE D- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.380 of 2013 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2014 ORDER
The petitioners herein are the respondents in M.C No.42/2012 brought by the 1st respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, seeking various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The relief she sought included a claim for maintenance also, as against the 1st petitioner herein. The petitioners now seeks an order from this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the said proceedings on the ground that the 1st respondent has already filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court, Vadakara against the 1st petitioner herein, as M.C.No.74/2012, and the said case is pending.
2. On a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act this Court finds that parallel proceedings for maintenance under the said Act and under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are permissible. Crl.M.C No.380 of 2013 2 Pendency of a claim for maintenance before the Family Court will not preclude the petitioners therein from seeking relief including maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Section 26 of the said Act provides that any relief available under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act may also be sought in any legal proceedings, before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court, and Sub Section 2 provides that any relief referred in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a Civil or Criminal Court. Sub-section (3) further provides that in case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. Thus we find that parallel proceedings for maintenance are possible, and one proceeding cannot be set aside or quashed on the ground that there is another proceeding before a different forum. The 1st respondent herein has Crl.M.C No.380 of 2013 3 the right to claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, when a decision is taken in one proceeding, the other court will have to consider such decision while granting the relief in the second proceeding. The court also will have to follow the decision of this Court in Preceline George (Dr.) V. State of Kerala and another reported in (2011(4) KHC502. In view of the clear provisions contained in Section 26 of the the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also the decision of this Court covering the legal issue, this Court does not find any merit in this application, and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. P.UBAID JUDGE ab