The Kerala High Court clarified that a Magistrate dealing with domestic violence cases is not powerless to correct mistakes in their own orders. The Court intervened after a property injunction affected individuals who were not originally part of the dispute.
Background of the Case
The case arose from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Respondents had approached the Magistrate seeking relief, including protection over a residential property.
An interim order was passed restraining alienation or encumbrance of a property measuring 18.95 ares. However, a portion of this land-2.43 ares had already been sold to third-party purchasers through a chain of valid sale deeds dating back to 2016.
When these purchasers approached the Magistrate seeking removal of the injunction on their portion, their application was dismissed. The Magistrate held that there was no provision under the Domestic Violence Act to determine title disputes and directed them to approach a civil court.
Hearing the revision petition, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar examined whether a Magistrate has the authority to revisit and correct an earlier order if it causes unintended harm.
The Court referred to the legal principle “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”, meaning an act of the court should not prejudice anyone.
“The mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of granting rightful relief,” the bench observed, emphasizing that courts must ensure fairness when their own orders cause unintended consequences.
The High Court noted that the petitioners were not seeking declaration of title but only removal of the injunction wrongly affecting their property. It found that the Magistrate had misunderstood the relief sought.
Importantly, the Court held that if a Magistrate has the authority to issue an injunction, they also possess the power to modify or vacate it when necessary. Directing parties to approach a civil court in such circumstances was termed unjustified.
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order that had rejected the application.
The Court ruled that the interim injunction would not apply to the 2.43 ares of property purchased by the petitioners through a valid sale deed. The restriction on alienation and encumbrance over that portion was formally lifted.
Case Details
Case Title: N.K. Prasannan & Anr. vs State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No. 555 of 2025
Judge: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
