Dismissed

Ruby John v. Thomson Davis & Ors.

Kerala HC24 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/2041/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging orders denying custody relief under the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that custody was already settled by the Family Court and the Act covers only interim custody, rendering the plea untenable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the petitioner cannot claim custody of children in this proceeding.

Ruby John Vs Thomson Davis & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2041 of 2009 -----------------------------CRA.775/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE (ADHOC-III), N.PARAVUR

¶6

CMP.2438/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

RUBY JOHN, AGED 45 YEARS, MUNDADAN HOUSE, CHURCH NAGAR-50, ANGAMALY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THOMAS DAVIS, PALLATTI HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., PIN-683 594, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THRESIAMMA DAVIS, PALLATTI HOUSE, PUTHENVEILIKKARA P.O., PIN-683 594, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : C S HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.2041 of 2009 --------------------------------------Dated this 24^th day of July 2009

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor.

¶21

The challenge is to the order of learned Judicial Frist Class Magistrate, Aluva in C.M.P.No.2438 of 2007 as confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-3), North Paravur in Criminal Appeal No.775 of 2008. Grievance of petitioner considered by the courts below is that she is not getting custody of her minor children who are now in the custody of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Petition was filed under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Act 43 of 2005) seeking custody of the children. It came out from the documents produced by the contesting respondents in the trial court that as regards custody of the children, there was a proceeding before the Family Court concerned which answered the issue in favour of the father. That order was challenged by petitioner in appeal in this court but, without success. This is proved by Ext.D3. There were some other proceeding between petitioner and her husband. As per Ext.D4, there was a decree of divorce. Ext.D5 is copy of order of the Family Court concerning the claim for maintenance made by the petitioner. Courts below observed that so far as custody of the children is concerned, it is already concluded by order of the Family Court as confirmed by this court in appeal and as such, question of granting

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.2041 of 2009 2

¶23

relief to the petitioner in the way requested for did not arise. The courts below also observed that the statute sought to the invoked only dealt with interim custody of children. In the light of the decision of the Family Court as confirmed by this court in appeal as to the custody of the children, petitioner cannot claim custody of the children in this proceeding.

¶24

It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner had certain other claims as she suffered loss due to nonpayment of dowry on time. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get interest on the amount for a period of 19 years. Learned counsel invited my attention to the report of Protection Officer that petitioner needs to get interest for a period of 19 years. But I find from the copy of the petition preferred by petitioner that there is no such specific claim and instead there is only allegation that petitioner suffered loss. It is also seen that the issue was not highlighted by petitioner in any of the courts below. Therefore it is unnecessary for this court to go into that question in this revision. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of any such claim or claims if she is otherwise entitled to, by initiating appropriate proceedings afresh and that disposal of this revision will not in any way affect that right, if any of the petitioner.

¶25

With the above observation this revision is dismissed.

¶26

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶27

Sbna/

Ruby John v. Thomson Davis & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby John v. Thomson Davis & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Babu Vs George Mathew

P.G.Raphael Vs P.Ramana Rao

Kunhimoideen Vs State of Kerala

K.Sudhakaran Vs Suresh

Anil Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs K.P.Francis