Tabitha Stanley W/O Pastor J Stanley vs Pastor J Stanley on 23 June, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Tabitha Stanley W/O Pastor J Stanley vs Pastor J Stanley on 23 June, 2011

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT   

DATED THIS THE 23% DAYQF JU-1':'2'E"2€}'1  * _
PRESENT'  p ..  V

THE HONBLE MR. J.s.KHEIL<.,kR*:_'C1z€IEI?. J13Sit:'i€j;E__ :; AA
AND    -. ~.   '
THE H()N'BLE MR. ..:-'Uef;:Ic}:«:   _,
WRIT APPEAL NO.4744'-4' ZC'.l1 (GMfREi3) 263 W
Misc:--W.NO.E}-4'. }'--/2911 " j

BETWEEN:

TABITHA S'I'ANLEY   

W/O PASTOR JV S*rAN_1.E&:f I     ;
AGED ABOU ' :33 Y{E'.:ARS   " 

V _ __LAYOU'i:' '
KAR1YANPA:Q1'A;:_LENGARAJPESARA' 
BANGA:,Q_R§;'5500::§_  ' ' «

R/AT No. 12-:';'sf;,.._e::=:1>3;;;MAN:_
_ _  COMMON APPELLANT
PASTOR  .  

S/O LATE: JG'S'E§PI«%_  .
AGED AB.OUT 63.. YEARS

" "  _ R/A'1"Nf3» 1  arm cR<:-9.3
ESTHER: §:Z;N_CLA\fE
 ' H0R:xM.,AVU*-. ' _
 BEW{}AE,(§}§%3 §@Q.~~043. MCOMMON RESPONDENT

'»&%*:::*::*L'4§*.;s;13Pi«:A:, ES FELED UNDER SECTEON 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH CGURT AC'I' PRAYING 'R3 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED EN 'WRIT PETITION NO,E5§1/201} {GFVERES} " D,§';'fE§D 25/95/29} 19 V 'i'vI£SC,Vs7,{3437/ZGEE ES FELEE UNDER S§3ICiT1{}'E\E 1.5} C}? QPC PRAYENG Ti) S'I}'¥'f 'EH3 PROCEIEIDENGS EN V. _.C;§~§iS{3,?EGi2QG'E¥ C}? THE FELE *1}? "SEE EX;/EE'E'R®POL{'1'P:N f¥Ez%{}E$'§'Rz%'§Z§ 'ERAFE?EC €{}UR'§ -- E {§2'§§VE'§€ « 1} MAYQ HALL? §§A§l{§A§,{}§{Ei A'! EENNEXEERE « A 35%? "»2ié"'?; E 561 XZQE 1, xaﬁv QWgi;w&a»£,mr"3wQ«; ~€):x"VV -3- WRIT APPEAL AND MISCW. CQMINQ;"""(§--N*- . 'E5t1}R'x DAY, CI-iIF,'F'* J:2"s*r:c'E "

PRELIMINARY HEARING TEES DELIVERED THE FQI,L5.)\.'§Ii7)GG M E N T J.S.KHEHAR C.J. (Oral):

It is not a matter 0f disp'u;{e_, it-hat jtfisil during the courae of proceédizagg. und6r._t1ri€_}?rétec:{io11 of Waman from D0mes:ic..V_Vi01aiiG2ﬁ' A 20{j5"'[1'1é r'einafter referred to as 'the order under Section 23 of mentian, that Section uéiéi)eCt is concerned, has * 28 of the 2005 Act.

Sectioﬁs .23 of. _f}1v€__ 2005 Act are being extracted hereu:ide1*._ "

Poiver ,fi_r2 grant interim and ex parte _ -orders: {1} In any proceeding before him under tiiis E':<:-t,""Ei1r;§____3x?iagisi:'aie may pass such i:::'u3ri1n dfdef' as deems just 3.11:3 pmper.

~ If the Magistram is satisfied that an

--_'a'p;5_i_i£:2::ii0'n prima facie discloseg that ths niizzpézzséent is committing? Gr hag csmmittsd an a%:t bf domestic: violence 91* that there is 3; 'Eik%:1iho0d that the respondent may commit an act ._ of dcamestic vi0i<3n<:e, he may grant an :32: parts:

Oifdﬁf on the basis of the affidavit in gush farm, as may bs pI'€f5C:1'§b€d, of the agg'rieVed person aznﬁer section 18,. Sﬁttiiﬁsfl 1%, s€c::ti0:ie 20, aeztiign :2} Q1; :13 the Case may bﬁ, sesiiéen 22 aggizési {he 1"'€:f§}3€)EE€i€§7§§'

28. Pmce§1.::*e.- {1} §:::*<:sv§§e:3£§ 2:: {kiss A<::%i., 33% SEIVS as; oéhemrise p:*<;::%e»3:.i§::g$ LE1"}{§€1"

§:§ma%e/tmigﬁv at i"- and oﬁnnet zoe? {lilaé aoee.

£4 3 -

sections 12., 18, 19. 20. 21, 22 and 23..___ and offences under section 231 shall be governed 't_>yFthe provisions of the Code of Criminai P'F{)t?€Ci't,§f€§, 19?3(2of1974L %5w !\ [2] Nothing in subsection {1)V__eh.aH_ V' the Court frotn Iaying' CiO\¥lf}..i.15S_'OVV_f'} pVfoaeednre.fe=1fV Vt dispoeai of an application nnder"«_seet:Lo::.VV;j2'_o1j' under sub-section {:2} of aeetion_'23. "

2. The subject matter noivvtaised by the learned eoung;:é1'*».fo1' ieehwhether an appeal is competent by the trial court 'of Act (read with Section Code, 1973). The learned' of the writ petition oirder dated 25.05.2011, has answered"the_ Veiuestion in the affirmative. The aforesaid detern1inat¥.on rendered by the tearnecl single aseaﬁed by the learned counsel for the at;o'p.e11antj;_v»--__ Eneofar as the instant issue is {':Of1C€I'1'1€(i teatiizeeteonneel for the appeilant has piaeed relianee en jtndgvfnenta rendered by a learned singie Jneige of the "'Ke:'a§a Eiigh Court in Sutoehana and Ant. V, Knttappan Reiiaonee has been ptaeett en the tE:;EEow§ng tisbaenzatéene znaeie therein:

-4-

l2. Section 29 speaks of appeals. It implies that appeal is rnaintainable against 'the order'. To construe the ambit of the expression 'the order' in Section 29 of the Act, it will first be necessary to consider the plain language of the statutory provision. It speaks of an appeal fthe order. The definite article 'the' used in--§Sect:E'on' . inust certainly have reference to '7t_hej'r'loi*dei:'sl referred earlier' {)therWise,p the entplogznienltilofwthre definite article 'the' would lose signiFic_anee§'"'All1 orders referred to earlier'---_ inj"ehapter~ uo:f=--._tli.e:

statute must be held be fall lwithinptthte"si;veep"of expression 'the order" as"'~there'is no other"or..better v ' method of understanding "the definite: article 'the' used immediately before :the"'eXpressi.or1forder' in Section 29 of the Act. _"l'heret_"ore~-- going by the plain language of Section' ll no hesitation to agree that the e;:p'i*ession 'tl<1e'7or.d~er' must take within its.:\sweep"all'ord_ers*--passed' under Sections l8 to 2:3 and l findfno reasonexclude, going by langi.iag'e.__ se.ri1antic-s,'--«an_ order passed under Section from._the 'sweep; of the expression 'the ord*e3i'_in SeL:tion--.2Qz. ' iv ._ -l3.*'.Theale'arne_d-- counsel for the petitioners contends tli.atVWhile.understanding the expression 'theaorder'; a'.dist'inction must be made between Vfinal l"ordersf. passed under Sections 18 to 22 in eontradi's~t_inction to interim orders passed under Section 23 ofiihe Act. The counsel contends that t_he_pnr~pose of the Act, the class of persons f target _ . pits tgghoni relief is sought to be granted under ' = the .Act;;; the sense of expedition which must inform all .a_i:tnorities dealing with proceedings under the Act as reflected in Section 12(4), l2{5) and 13 rapist all be borne in mind while considering the it sweep of expression 'the order', He also contends that if two views are possible, the one in favour of the target group - the e/lass of persons {victini woinen in this case} for when: benefit is sought to be conferred tinder the hiiinane provisions of the Acts cannot be lost sight; of, W.mm»m ' av "J ﬁtﬂgrﬂg/(«flrguie AAA 5 -

14. Purely interlocutory orders which deal only with procedure and which do not affect the rights of parties will Certainly riot fall VVi'{,hifi';l:h€ sweep of the expression 'the order' in Secti.oi1_< [29, Any and every order under Chapter shot may not fall within the sweep of e2<:pre?ssioi;..'L:"'--

order' in Section .29. The order has to effect or have a material reflection on the r"ightSfef parties in order that such orders V-'.foulc_§l4 be "ttp;jelletl3le: lltwisi' true that Section 23 does not exciL1de~.iriterlocvijtor§t. orders specifically from theeweep egipresieiori V 'the order'. But even-__4":e,:ithottt._ suuch "a""epe'cifie "

exclusion (as found in fjroviesionle'-oftiS'eeti::;:>r1 19(1) of the Family Courts;l£'ic.t';'-.Se.<:tior1l'3QT7(i2} of the Cr.P.C. Section' ..ll?fl»-- of5_the. Terrorist Affected Areas Special Courts Act', 19 of the Terrorist and Dis.r1.i'ptiv'e Act"i'VitieS,vPreverltiori Act, 1987 aI_1ci_'h1any;;other eﬁactmerrts), in Section 23 of the?_ _ it ~.h;as to be""'held that purely inter?1oc:>1tot'y'3'orciei*=s 'tvhichedo not affect the rights of parties ehall hiotlhe. atjpe:tlable_ Havingreferred _.ei1'1or§::said determination rendered by the Kelrala' it is the contention of the eot1r1eel"fer' the appellant, that the remedy age_.i:1s't*v,e;::.4"o,re1er passed under section 23 of the 2305 zietlllihreati Section {fill of Criminal Procedure Code}, rnuet,..e:{r1erg'e from the provisions of the Criminal "F'roeeclt§;re Code, and hot, from the provisions of the 'A2885' Act, 3% 'ﬁfe have ggiveri etir t:he:>t:ght,tE;l eoheideratieh te the etzhmieeieh etiverieeei at the hf:1{i(fl:"% ei' the learzzeti WWW...» «ti am aeéﬁe lg/i M%«QxJ » 7 » be relevant. in the aforesaid View of the n1atte_i*,-.._4t:li1e remedy as against the order passed under Sejé_§ti'0-n_' _ the 2005 Act. must emerge from the 2005 Act itself. it is futile to traee into the provisisns of the.aPﬂreteet:i_oi: sf witrmlen fjrofii Domestic Violence Act, p'rQ\?isien'sv':oflltlqell Cede of Criminal Procedure; -tlieretefellsatisfied, that learned single in relying' on Section V-._feIf| tiurpese. This determiiiatien ti§e'5lea_rnecl single Judge is even otl'i--em?ise jest lappmpfiateé inasmuch as, in the present eOntrQVers},{f'the. respondent was afforded an opportunity to 'ersssa_e:;><.aniine the appellant. if the respendentl'li1ati"t€> for the completien of the trial ltfie' passing the final order) so as to assail the ._.e:t':§ei'* ;:§aslseea.:Vii.nder Section 23 of the 2005 Act, the appellantlnierein Whe would suffer immense prejudice lgiand i:{it':.the respenaent} beeause the proceedings may «.:lj';3,a:x}e"_Ahad to be set aside, to enable the respondent te l eéfess-examiiie the appellant. (just as it has been ciene new; Est. eniy fez" {fX§»:'i€li?:§(}13:S-3 eiispesai ef the esnt/n>ve§'s;;, but aiseu in tenns st' eqtiity anii juséiee, it is

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court