Disposed

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy v. C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late T.Alikoya

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/423/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging an interim residential order under the DV Act. The court declined to modify the order directly, directing the petitioner to approach the trial court for modification with relevant facts, or to adopt the alternative suggestion by the Sessions Court contingent upon the mother's agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner directed to approach trial court for modification or propose alternative conditions if respondent agrees.

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy Vs C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late… — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 423 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRL. A NO. 812 OF 2011 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, MALAPPURAM)

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

T.IPSURAHIMAN

¶9

S/O.LATE T.ALIKOYA, 27/2041A (1/691), MARVA HOUSE P.O. PUTHIYARA, PUTHIYAPALAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE:

¶12

1. C.P.M.SAINABI,

¶13

W/O.LATE T.ALIKOYA, 27/2041 A (1/691), MARVA HOUSE

¶14

P.O. PUTHIYARA, PUTHIYAPALAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE

¶15

NOW RESIDING AT GRACE PARAYANCHERY, PUTHIYARA P.O. KOZHIKODE-673 004.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031. (SI OF POLICE

¶19

KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE).

¶20

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶23

----------------------------------

¶24

Crl. R.P. No. 423 of 2012

¶25

---------------------------------

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2012.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Under challenge is the interim order passed under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode, as confirmed in Crl. A No. 815 of 2011 of the Sessions Court, Malappuram.

¶29

The revision petitioner is the son of the first respondent. The first respondent filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court under the provisions of the DV Act for various reliefs alleging that the revision petitioner herein is treating her cruelly.

¶30

The petitioner before the Court below sought for residential order. The trial court directed as an interim arrangement that the respondent and his family before the said Court can occupy the first floor and petitioner before the said court can be permitted to occupy the ground floor. Against the

¶31

¶32

Crl. R.P. No. 423 of 2012

¶33

trial court order, the revision petitioner filed Crl. A No.815/2011 before the Sessions Court, Malappuram. The appellate court did not interfere the order of the trial court but suggested that if the appellant is ready to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his mother for her maintenance and other expenses on condition that the mother will keep away from the disputed premises, or the shared household till final decision is taken in the main proceedings, and if the mother is amenable to such a course, or if the conditions are agreeable to her, such a course can be thought of and an

¶34

affidavit to that effect can be filed in the lower court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same grounds as were urged before the lower appellate court. It was pointed out that the revision petitioner is willing to pay some amount to the mother but, order of residence may not continue. It is pointed out that the first floor is in the occupation of another person and it may not be possible for the revision petitioner and his family to occupy that portion of the building now. It is pointed out that the rent so received is the only means of income for him.

¶36

¶37

Crl. R.P. No. 423 of 2012

¶38

If any modification is required of the order of the trial court, it will be open to the revision petitioner to move the trial

¶39

court after placing the relevant facts justifying interference by the said court. The petitioner can also impress upon the trial court the necessity to sell the building and seek appropriate orders. It will be open to the revision petitioner to adopt the alternative suggested by the lower appellate court provided the petitioner before the trial court is also heard in the matter.

¶40

If any such petition is filed by the revision petitioner, the

¶41

trial Court may dispose of the same untrammeled by the observation made by the lower appellate court while disposing of the appeal.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

¶43

Scl.

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy v. C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late T.Alikoya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ipsurahiman S/O.Late T.Alikoy v. C.P.M.Sainabi, W/O.Late T.Alikoya

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

Y.K.Anandhan Vs State of Kerala and Others

B.Musthafa Vs Irikoor Grama Panchayath and Another

N.v.Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Ameer Suthan Vs the State of Kerala

C.S.Santhosh Vs K.M.Shareefa

Gracy Earnest Vs N.G.Mary Elizabeth