Remanded

Muhammedali v. Faseela

Kerala HC20 May 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/284/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned maintenance and domestic violence orders. The matter was remitted to the trial court to provide the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence from a doctor regarding the first petitioner's mental illness, which was not examined due to witness non-appearance in the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; main matter remitted to trial court with direction to adduce medical evidence regarding petitioner's mental illness within four months.

Muhammedali Vs Faseela — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 284 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL 13/2017 of II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD DATED 10-01-2019

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC 11/2014 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MANNARKAD DATED 31-10-2016

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 MUHAMMEDALI

¶10

AGED 38 YEARS

¶11

S/O VEERAN, MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O., AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

2 VEERAN

¶13

AGED 63 YEARS MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O., AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3 ASYA

¶15

AGED 57 YEARS

¶16

W/O. VEERAN, MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O., AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

4 SAKEENA, AGED 39 YEARS D/O VEERAN, MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O., AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.J.RAMKUMAR

¶19

RESPONDENT/S:

¶20

1 FASEELA D/O HAMSA, AGED 25 YEARS, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHANGALEERI POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582.

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 284 of 2019

¶22

¶23

2 MUHAMMED SUFIYAN S/O MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 7 ½ YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER FASEELA, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHANGALEERI POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582.

¶24

3 MUHAMMED ZAYAN

¶25

S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER FASEELA, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHANGALEERI POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582.

¶26

BY ADVS. SMT.P.A.JENZIA SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 284 of 2019

¶29

¶30

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶31

Crl.R.P.No. 284 of 2019

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2019

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The prayer in the above Criminal Revision Petition is as follows:

¶35

“...........pleased to set aside the judgment dated 10.1.2019 in Crl.Appeal No.13/2017 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad and the order dated 31.10.2016 in M.C.No.11/2014 of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad and to allow the revision petition accordingly.”

¶36

Heard Sri. Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

revision petitioners and Sri. K.A.Mansoor Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶38

The case projected in the Crl.R.P. is as follows:- The revision petitioners are the appellants/respondents in the courts blow. The respondents herein filed M.C. under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act for various reliefs including maintenance and compensation. The petitioners objected the petition stating that the 1^st revision petitioner is suffering from mental illness and he is unable to maintain himself. He is depending upon the mother and brother for his livelihood. Moreover, he had expressed his willingness to reside together. The trial court found that the respondents herein suppressed the materials facts and rightly found that there is no evidence to substantiate the case of domestic violence. The petitioners produced documents to prove the mental illness of the 1^st revision petitioner

¶39

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 284 of 2019 4

¶40

herein and also took steps to examine the Doctor, who consulted the 1^st revision petitioner. Unfortunately, he did not turn up. The courts below rejected the argument of the petitioners only because of non-appearance of the summoned witness. The learned Magistrate erroneously directed the 1^st revision petitioner to provide maintenance to the respondents. So also, the revision petitioners are prohibited from making phone calls to the respondents and also from going to the respondents' residence and from forcibly taking children except in accordance with law. The appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial court. It is under the above circumstances, the revision petitioners have filed the above Criminal Revision Petition with the aforementioned prayer.

¶41

Sri. Santheep Ankarath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the limited relief sought for by the revision petitioners is that the matter may be remitted to the trial Court to provide to the revision petitioners reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence of the doctor concerned, who had treated the 1^st revision petitioner to prove his mental illness. It is pointed out that though the request to adduce evidence to the doctor was made, the doctor had not turned up on the day in question and the Court below had rejected the contentions of the revision petitioners only because of the non-appearance of the summoned witness.

¶42

Taking note of the above said facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 in M.C.No.11/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

¶43

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 284 of 2019 5

¶44

Mannarkad and the impugned judgment dated 10.1.2010 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl,Appeal 13/2017 will stand set aside. Further it is ordered that the main matter in M.C.No.11/2014 will stand remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. The learned Magistrate will provide reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioners to adduce the evidence of the doctor concerned to prove the alleged mental illness of the 1^st revision petitioner herein. Both parties may be permitted to adduce any other additional evidence, if they so desire. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate will grant reasonable opportunity to both sides and then will pass fresh orders in the said M.C. , without much delay preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

With these observations and directions the above Crl.R.P. will stand disposed of.

¶46

sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

acd

Muhammedali v. Faseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammedali v. Faseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Tyson Vs State of Kerala

Sudharsan.K.v, Vs the State of Kerala

Vino Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Rajyasree Bharath Poura Karthvya Nirvahana Sahaya Samithy Vs V.R. Eliyas

Libi M.B. Vs State of Kerala