Sunil Samuel vs Reena K.J
2022 Latest Caselaw 9065 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
                  OP(CRL.) NO. 374 OF 2022
 CMP 89/2022 IN MC 114/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
                   CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC:

         SUNIL SAMUEL
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O SAMUEL, BETHANY BHAVAN, ELAMPAL P.O,
         PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 322

         BY ADVS.
         NIRMAL V NAIR
         ANEES.T
         M.ANEESH
         MUHAMMED NASEEF BIN SALIM
         ARATHI PRABHAKARAN



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN MC:

    1    REENA K.J
         AGED 39 YEARS
         D/O JOY ANTONY, KAREEPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.C. KAVALA
         P.O, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
         DISTRICT. , PIN - 686537

    2    EMMANUEL SUNIL
         AGED 9 YEARS
         S/O SUNIL SAMUEL (REPRESENTED
         BY HIS MOTHER REENA K.J), KAREEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         P.C. KAVALA P.O, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY,
         KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686537
 O.P.(Crl)No.374/2022

                                -:2:-

    3      EMILIN SUNIL(MINOR)
           AGED 6 YEARS
           D/O SUNIL SAMUEL (REPRESENTED BY
           HER MOTHER REENA K.J), KAREEPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.C.
           KAVALA P.O, PAYIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY,
           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686537


     THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022,   THE      COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Crl)No.374/2022

                                     -:3:-




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

The petitioner is the husband in a proceedings under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the

Act'). The 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner and

the 1st respondent.

2. The learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte interim

maintenance order under Section 23(2) of the Act, directing the

petitioner to pay a sum of ₹20,000/- as monthly maintenance to

the respondents. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition to modify

Ext.P1 order and to pass fresh orders after hearing both sides.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the said

petition was filed as early as on 4.1.2022, it has not been

disposed of so far.

3. Since Ext.P1 is an ex-parte order, I am of the view O.P.(Crl)No.374/2022

that the court below shall pass an order on Ext.P2 in accordance

with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp O.P.(Crl)No.374/2022

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 374/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-10-

2021 IN C.M.P 2035/2021 IN M.C 114/2021

Exhibit p2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C NO. 114/2021

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEARING C.M.P NO. 89/2022 IN M.C. NO. 114/2021

Exhibit4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.C.

114/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHANGANASSERY