Magistrate Has Jurisdiction Under Domestic Violence Act To Pass Injunction Order & Also Vacate Or Modify Same: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by the applicants in a case pertaining to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act).

The Single Bench of Justice C.Pratheep Kumar held, “The revision petitioners are really aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.1060/2022. Therefore, it is the duty of the very same Court to redress the said grievance instead of directing the aggrieved party to approach another forum. If the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction under the provisions of the D.V. Act to pass an injunction order, the Magistrate also has the power to vacate or modify the same if it causes prejudice to another.”

Advocate S.K. Saji represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Binu Babukuttan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Magistrate had passed an order in favour of respondents 2 to 4, restraining Respondents 5 & 6 from alienating or creating any sort of encumbrance on the property and the residence.

According to the revision petitioners, out of the total extent of 18.95 ares of property, a portion having an extent of 3.93 ares was purchased by one Easo V.G. Later on, Easo sold the said property in favour of D.Geevarghese. From Geevarghese, the revision petitioners purchased 2.43 ares of property. The revision petitioners filed a Petition before the Magistrate to vacate the interim order with respect to the property purchased by them. The Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no provision in the D.V. Act to declare the title of a person and therefore, directed the revision petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Being aggrieved by an order of the Magistrate, the Revision petition was filed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that an extent of 2.43 ares of property out of 18.95 ares covered by the order of the Magistrate exclusively belonged to the revision petitioners.

As per the Bench, for no fault of the revision petitioners, they suffered an order of injunction over the property they purchased for valid consideration, and the order passed by the Magistrate had no legs to stand on. “Since the said order passed by the learned Magistrate has caused prejudice to the revision petitioners in their right to enjoy the property purchased by them for valid consideration, the same Court has a duty to set it right by vacating the order of injunction. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in directing the revision petitioners to approach the civil Court for a declaration of their title”, it added.

The Bench also stated that the revision petitioners only prayed for lifting the order of injunction as against the property purchased by them and did not seek any declaration as stated in the impugned order.

The Bench thus concluded that the Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the claim made by the revision petitioner on the ground that there is no provision in the D.V. Act to grant relief to them. Thus, allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench vacated the injunction order of the Magistrate with respect to 2.43 ares of property.

Cause Title: N K Prasannan v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:21280)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates S.K.Saji, Mayamol T.S., G.R. Manju, Sagith Kumar V.

Respondent: Advocates Binu Babukuttan, Vidhu M. Unnithan, Aromalunni M.S., Ratheesh C., Hari Sankar V., Nima Meriyam Koshy, Roshan Kurian Roy

Click here to read/download Order