Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Karthikeyan Vs. Sheeja

Karthikeyan vs Sheeja

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Kerala Decided Feb 04, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/723571

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P. (C) No. 34531 of 2007
Subject
Family
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Family
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12 and 29; Constitution of India - Article 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karthikeyan

Advocate K. Sasi Kumar and; Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Advs.

Respondent

Sheeja

Advocate M.R. Sarin Panicker,; M.R. Sasith Panicker,; Kirar Sanka

Legal References

Reported In
II(2008)DMC92

Excerpt

- .....order and, therefore, under the impression that such an order is not appealable under section 29 of the act, no appeal was preferred and the petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition.3. the impugned order is certainly one affecting the rights of the petitioner. he wants the ex parte order to be set aside. he can either challenge the ex parte order passed on merits. in the alternative, he can only request the court to set aside the ex parte order. when that application to set aside the ex parte order is dismissed on the ground that such a petition will not lie, the said finding/order is according to me certainly an appeal able order under section 29 of the act. the petitioner must have challenged the order by a properly instituted appeal under section 29 of the act. i find no reason to entertain this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who has a right of appeal under section 29 of the act. this writ petition cannot, hence, be entertained as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 29 of the protection of women from domestic violence act to challenge the said order. this writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. i make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not in anyway affect the rights of the petitioner to challenge either the original ex parte final order passed against him or the subsequent order (ext. p4) passed against him in a properly instituted appeal under section 29 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, subject of course to the law of limitation.

Full Judgment

R. Basant, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P4 order. The respondent herein had approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An ex parte final order was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said ex parte order. That petition was dismissed by Ext. P4 order. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution may be invoked.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain why he has come to this Court with a writ petition and why the option to prefer an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has not been invoked. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is only a procedural order and, therefore, under the impression that such an order is not appealable under Section 29 of the Act, no appeal was preferred and the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition.

3. The impugned order is certainly one affecting the rights of the petitioner. He wants the ex parte order to be set aside. He can either challenge the ex parte order passed on merits. In the alternative, he can only request the Court to set aside the ex parte order. When that application to set aside the ex parte order is dismissed on the ground that such a petition will not lie, the said finding/order is according to me certainly an appeal able order under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner must have challenged the order by a properly instituted appeal under Section 29 of the Act. I find no reason to entertain this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who has a right of appeal under Section 29 of the Act. This writ petition cannot, hence, be entertained as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to challenge the said order. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not in anyway affect the rights of the petitioner to challenge either the original ex parte final order passed against him or the subsequent order (Ext. P4) passed against him in a properly instituted appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, subject of course to the law of limitation.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial