Allowed

Sanoop Prasad v. Dr.S.Soumya

Kerala HC20 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2158/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition arising from domestic violence and matrimonial disputes under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment. The Court held that as the parties voluntarily entered into a comprehensive compromise settlement on 1.6.2012 covering criminal charges, maintenance, property, and d

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment in Crl.Appeal No.210 of 2011 is set aside. The parties are bound by the terms of the settlement dated 1.6.2012. The balance maintenance arrears deposited are to be released to th

Sanoop Prasad Vs Dr.S.Soumya — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2158 of 2011 ( )

¶6

CRA.210/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM MP.2241/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS IN APPEAL:

¶8

SANOOP PRASAD, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.LATE PRASAD, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM

¶10

SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.

¶11

T.K.KAIRALY, AGED 61 YEARS,

¶12

W/O.LATE PRASAD, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM

¶13

SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.

¶14

SEEMA PRASAD, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶15

W/O.SUBODH, THOPPIL HOUSE, PALLILAMKARA

¶16

KALAMASSERY.

¶17

T.K.AJITHKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶18

S/O.LATE KARTHIKEYAN, THEKKEVALATH HOUSE, VALAM

¶19

SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI

¶21

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE/RESPONDENTS IN APPEAL:

¶22

DR.S.SOUMYA, AGED 27 YEARS,D/O.SATHEESAN

¶23

ASWATHI, SANTHINAGAR ANNEXE ROAD, RAJAGIRI P.O.

¶24

SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683104.

¶25

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶26

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶27

BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI-R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN-R2

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ==========================

¶30

CRL.R.P. No.2158 OF 2011 ==========================

¶31

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2012

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.9.2011 in Crl.Appeal No.210 of 2011 on the file of the Additional

¶34

Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc-II), Ernakulam. The first respondent herein filed M.P.No.2241 of 2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter 'the Act'. The said application was taken up for consideration along with three other applications filed by her and a common order was passed on 20.4.2011. As per order dated 20.4.2011 in M.P.No.2241 of 2009, the said application was allowed in part restraining the revision petitioners herein who are her husband, his mother, his sister and uncle, from committing any acts of domestic violence or aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of any domestic violence against the petitioner therein/first respondent herein. The first respondent

¶35

Crl.R.P.2158/11 2

¶36

therein was also directed to secure alternative accommodation of the same level of the one being enjoyed by the first respondent herein while they were residing together, within three months from the date of request for the same in writing by her. She was also granted liberty to find out an alternative accommodation of her choice within three months thereafter in case the first respondent therein/first petitioner herein fails to secure an alternative accommodation for her. In such eventuality, the first petitioner was further directed to meet the rent and other expenses for securing such alternative accommodation. The respondents took up the matter in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.210 of 2011. The said appeal was allowed in part. The appellate court found that the first respondent herein is only entitled to get reliefs under sections 18 and 20 of the Act and she is not entitled to get any residence order under section 19 of the Act. This revision petition has been filed against the said judgment in Crl.Appeal No.210 of 2011 to redress the remaining grievances of the revision petitioners.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶38

Crl.R.P.2158/11

¶39

¶40

learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Pending the revision petition, the parties have settled their disputes and entered into a compromise. The first respondent has duly verified the compromise and brought the same on record by filing an affidavit. The terms of compromise which are relevant for the purpose of this case are given in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit. They read thus:-

¶41

1. The respondent shall withdraw the complaint filed by him against the respondent and her father for the offences under sections 66, 66B, 66C, 66D & 66E read with section 43 of the Information Technology Act which is registered as Crime No.360/2012 of the Kalamassery Police Station.

¶42

1. The respondent shall co-operate with the petitioner in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and her father in Crime No.360/2012 of Kalamassery Police Station which is pending as M.P.No.487/2012 before the Hon'ble Judicial first Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva.

¶43

1. The petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent in quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. in C.C.No.3943/2010 before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam.

¶44

1. The petitioner shall relinquish all her claims in M.P.No.2241/2009 which is the subject matter of Crl.R.P.No.2158/2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of

¶45

Crl.R.P.2158/11

¶46

¶47

Kerala except the claim over the deposited amount in M.P.No.2241/2009 of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam.

¶48

1. The petitioner shall file petition/compromise in Crl.R.P.No.2158/2011 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by relinquishing all her claims in M.P.No.2241/2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, except the right over the deposited amount therein.

¶49

1. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the balance arrears of maintenance deposited in M.P.No.1477/2011 in M.P.No.2241/2009 before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam.

¶50

1. The petitioner shall not raise any claim for future maintenance from the respondent.

¶51

1. The respondent shall return Rs.38,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand only) which is the market value of the remaining one pair gold stud weighing 12.670 gms to the petitioner.

¶52

1. The respondent shall return the gold chain, given to him from the petitioner's family at the time of marriage, to the petitioner and the petitioner shall return the Thali Chain to the respondent.

¶53

10)The respondent and the petitioner shall file joint petition for divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Hon'ble Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶54

11)The respondent and the petitioner shall not raise any dispute with regard to any matter from the date of marriage till date.

¶55

Crl.R.P.2158/11

¶56

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner would endorse the fact that the dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent have been compromised as per the terms specifically mentioned above. In the said circumstances, paragraph 4 of the said affidavit viz., 4.1 to 4.11 which has been extracted above form part of this order. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise subject to the terms and conditions mentioned hereinbefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and hereinafter, in respect of the subject matter involved in this revision petition, the parties will be bound by conditions of the settlement entered between them on 1.6.2012 which have been extracted above. At the time of admission, this Court passed an order of stay of operation of the impugned judgment on condition of deposit of entire arrears awarded as maintenance till that date, by the petitioners. It was also ordered thereunder to release one half of the said amount to the first respondent, on such deposit. The petitioners have complied with the said conditional order and deposited the

¶58

Crl.R.P.2158/11

¶59

¶60

arrears payable till 22.9.2011. Pursuant to the deposit of the said amount, half the deposited amount was got released by the first respondent in terms of order dated 22.9.2011. Therefore, what is remaining in deposit is only half of the amount deposited in terms of the said order. In terms of the compromise, the first respondent herein is entitled to receive the said amount. Accordingly, it is ordered that the amount now remaining in deposit shall be released to the first respondent, on proper application.

¶61

The revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶62

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)

spc/

Crl.R.P.2158/11

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶67