The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C No.2/2011 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is a proceeding brought by his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (the Act). On an application brought by his wife, as Crl.M.P No.2109/2011 under Section 23 of the Act, for interim relief, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance to his wife at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.7.2011 he approached the Court of Session with Crl.A No.470/2011, under Section 29 of the Act. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter with direction to hear and dispose of Crl.M.P No.2109/2011 on merits, after considering the objection from the side of the petitioner herein. It is learnt that there after the learned Magistrate heard both sides on Crl.M.P No.2109/2013 and O.P(Crl) No.130 of 2014 2 passed orders on merits. Copy of the said order is not seen produced before this Court. What is produced is only a copy of the first order dated 19.7.2011, and also a copy of the judgment in appeal. Now, it appears that there is a warrant of arrest pending against the petitioner, in the execution proceeding brought by his wife in the court below. On the apprehension of arrest in such proceeding, he brought this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for orders keeping in abeyance the warrant pending against him in Crl.M.P No.2109/2013 in M.C No.2/2011. It is not known, and it is also not prayed, how long execution of warrant will have to be kept pending. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by the orders passed afresh by the learned Magistrate, he will have to pursue the normal remedy available under the law. The warrant of arrest issued from the trial court in execution of maintenance order, cannot be indefinitely kept pending by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and that is not the purport and object of Article 227, which empowers this Court to pass orders and take measures in exercise of supervisory powers. The petitioner will have to approach the trial court, make substantial payment, and get the warrant re-called. If he is otherwise aggrieved by the O.P(Crl) No.130 of 2014 3 order, he will have to pursue the appropriate remedies possible under the law. This Court reserves comments on this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in such a situation, where ordinary and normal remedies are available, However, in a proceeding where warrant is issued for proper reasons, it cannot be stayed, or stalled or kept pending indefinitely by this Court.
In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab