Santhosh Kumar E.K vs Rajna Santhosh Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 10, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1281586

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1281586
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Apr 10, 2025
Case Number: OP(Crl.)/242/2025
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh Kumar E.K

Respondent

Rajna Santhosh Kumar

Excerpt

.....and 3 are the children of the petitioner and the respondent no.1. the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are the relatives of the petitioner.2. the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed m.c.no.388 of2019 before the judicial first class magistrate court, payyannur under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 against the petitioner. the respondent nos. 1 to 3 also filed an application for interim maintenance as crl.m.p.no.7816 of 2019, which was allowed as per ext.p1 order. thereafter, the m.c.no.388 of 2019 itself was dismissed as per ext.p2 judgment. after the dismissal of the m.c., the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed ext.p3 petition to enforce ext.p1 order. the petitioner appeared before the learned magistrate and submitted that since the m.c. itselfwas dismissed, the interim order merged with the judgment..4.. in m.c. and hence, the execution petition to execute ext.p1order is not maintainable. the petitioner filed objection toext.p3 and raised the maintainability issue. the grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the issue of maintainability, the learned magistrate is proceeding with ext.p3. it is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court.3. i have heard smt.m.shajna, the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. ext.p2 judgment would show that m.c.no.388 of2019 was dismissed by the learned magistrate holding that there is no domestic violence. the petitioner has raised a definite plea that since m.c. itself was dismissed, ext.p1 interim order cannot be executed. since such an issue of maintainability has been raised, it is incumbent on the part of the learned magistrate to decide the maintainability issue first. ..5.. hence, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the judicial first class magistrate court, payyannur to consider the maintainability issue first and then decide ext.p3 petition on merits, in accordance with law. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge apa ..6.. appendix of op(crl.) 242/2025.....

Full Judgment

..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP(CRL.) NO. 242 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 CMP NO.7816 OF 2019 IN MC NO.388 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYANNUR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1: SANTHOSH KUMAR E.K AGED 48 YEARS S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, PADUVILAM HOUSE, PARIKKALAM P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670705 BY ADVS. M.SHAJNA K.M.FIROZ NAYANA K.UMESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/ RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:
1 RAJNA SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR E.K, VANIBHAVANAM HOUSE, RAMANKULAM P.O. VELLUR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307 2 ADITHYA SANTHOSH KUMAR (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR E.K, VANIBHAVANAM HOUSE, RAMANKULAM, P.O. VELLUR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. REP.BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER RAJNA SANTHOSH KUMAR, PIN - 670307 ..2..
3 RITHWIK SANTHOSH KUMAR (MINOR) AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR.E.K, VANIBHAVANAM HOUSE, RAMANKULAM P.O. VELLUR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP.BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER RAJNA SANTHOSH KUMAR (ALL ARE RESIDING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION), PIN - 670307 4 SHYAMALA.Ε.Κ AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, 5 KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR AGED 78 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 6 SUMESH.E.Κ AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, 7 RAKESH.E.K AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION), PIN - 670705
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the relatives of the petitioner.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed M.C.No.388 of

2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also filed an application for interim maintenance as Crl.M.P.No.7816 of 2019, which was allowed as per Ext.P1 order. Thereafter, the M.C.No.388 of 2019 itself was dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment. After the dismissal of the M.C., the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Ext.P3 petition to enforce Ext.P1 order. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted that since the M.C. itself

was dismissed, the interim order merged with the judgment

..4.. in M.C. and hence, the execution petition to execute Ext.P1

order is not maintainable. The petitioner filed objection to

Ext.P3 and raised the maintainability issue. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the issue of maintainability, the learned Magistrate is proceeding with Ext.P3. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. I have heard Smt.M.Shajna, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Ext.P2 judgment would show that M.C.No.388 of

2019 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding that there is no domestic violence. The petitioner has raised a definite plea that since M.C. itself was dismissed, Ext.P1 interim order cannot be executed. Since such an issue of maintainability has been raised, it is incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate to decide the maintainability issue first. ..5.. Hence, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur to consider the maintainability issue first and then decide Ext.P3 petition on merits, in accordance with law. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA ..6.. APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 242/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 IN CMP NO. 7816/2019 IN MC NO. 388/2019 PASSED BY JFCM PAYYANNUR EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2022 IN MC EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMP NO.1364/2022 DATED 09.03.2022ON THE FILES OF JFCM PAYYANNUR EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS DATED 17.06.2022 IN CMP 1364/2022 ON THE FILES OF JFCM PAYYANNUR EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN CMP NO.1364/2022 OF THE JFCM COURT PAYYANNUR EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN KLT ONLINE 3143 DATED 21.12.2024.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties Santhosh Kumar E.K vs Rajna Santhosh Kumar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath