AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Tomy Sebastian appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior counsel Smt.Pramila Nesargi, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, appearing for respondent No.2.
The issue crops up on an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.229/2022 disposed on 30.05.2024. The co-ordinate Bench, while disposing the petition has passed the following order:
" 25. In the present case, the petitioner has proved that she was living with the respondent and her in-laws in the matrimonial home for a considerable length of time. Therefore, she is entitled for shared household in the matrimonial home.
In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petitioner is entitled to have residential order as defined under Section 17 of the Act.
iii. The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate measures to provide separate residence in her matrimonial home and it is needless to say that the order of residence to be protected in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
iv. The registry is directed to send the copy along with the documents forthwith for effective implementation of this order."
The subject petition is preferred on the score that the concerned Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners to extend the time that was directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
In the light of the order that is passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, finally, I grant only four weeks time to the petitioners to comply with the order dated 30.05.2024, as eight weeks are already passed after the order is passed, failing which, it is open to the beneficiary of the order to take recourse to law.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.