Revision petition by husband against interim order granting ex-wife Rs. 2,000 monthly for alternative accommodation in Domestic Violence case; dismissed as no perversity found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/14TH JYAISHTA 1934 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 950 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRA.512/2010 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CMP.8573/2010 IN MC(DV).54/2010 of J.M.F.C. - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
BASHEER KUTTY SON OF MUHAMMED KUNJU, MUNDAKATHARAYIL VEEDU PADNAYARKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL
RESPONDENTS:
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.NO.950/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF KOTTUKADU MUSLIM JAMA ATH.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
CRL.R.P. No.950 OF 2012 ==========================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2012
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C (DV) No.54/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The said M.C was filed by the second respondent herein, the wife of the revision petitioner, under section 23(2) of the Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for grant of interim relief towards expenses for alternative accommodation till the disposal of the M.C. The contention of the second respondent/ the petitioner therein was that she was physically and mentally tortured by the revision petitioner and was driven out of their shared house. The daughters born in their wedlock who are school going students reside with her. They now live at the mercy of her mother and brother. The children are finding it difficult to reach the school which situates at a far away place from their present residence. The cruelty meted out to
Crl.R.P.950/12
2
them by the revision petitioner makes the second respondent unwilling to live with him. It is alleged that the revision petitioner is having two houses in Karunagappally Village where the school of the children situates. It was raising such allegations that the second respondent sought for the interim relief of alternative accommodation.
Crl.R.P.950/12
3
Rs.1750/-. The second respondent produced a rent agreement dated 22.8.2010 executed by her in favour of one Muraleedharan to show that she took a house now, on monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. After considering all the rival submissions and taking into account the fact that the second respondent and daughters born in the wedlock of the second respondent and revision petitioner are living with her in a house taken on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and on finding that the petition discloses a prima facie case of the domestic violence the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent towards the expenses for alternative accommodation till the disposal of the M.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the matter was taken up in appeal as Crl.Appeal No.512/2010. Taking note of all relevant factors and the manner in which the learned Magistrate appreciated the facts and situation for the purpose of granting interim relief, the appellate court found it improper to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.
Crl.R.P.950/12
4
Crl.R.P.950/12
5
impugned is ordered to be in force only till the disposal of the M.C and the M.C is of the year 2010, it will only be appropriate for the learned Magistrate to consider an expeditious disposal of the M.C. (DV).54 of 2010.
Subject to the same, this revision petition is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(Judge)
spc/
Crl.R.P.950/12
6
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
Crl.R.P.950/12 7
BASHEER KUTTY
STATE OF KERALA
AJILA
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
