Dismissed

Shinekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/4148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenging a contempt petition for non-payment of maintenance under the DV Act. The Court held that an alleged general settlement agreement did not specifically address maintenance, so the lower court could proceed with enforcement.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenging the initiation of contempt proceedings was dismissed.

Shinekumar Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4148 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 67/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ALAPPUZHA CMP 38/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 SHINEKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHAN, ISWARIYA NIVAS, WEST OF L.M BUNGLAV, SOUTH ARYADU, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688006

¶9

2 RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 75 YEARS, S/O VASUTTY, THAIVELICKAKAM, KARUR, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012 3 RADHA AGED 71 YEARS, W/O RAMAKRISHNAN, THAIVELICKAKAM, KARUR, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688012 4 KOCHUMOL AGED 42 YEARS, W/O KABIRDAS, THAVELICKAKAM, KARUR, AMBALAPUZHA.P.O.., ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688012 BY ADV MATHEW JAMES

¶10

RESPONDENTS STATE &

¶11

PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031

¶13

2 KALA AGED 38 YEARS, D/O K.K. BABY, KALUVILAYIL, EAST OF GURUPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688006 3 ISWARYA AGED 7 YEARS, D/O SHINEKUMAR, KALLUVAYIL, EAST OF GURUPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ARYADU SOSUTH VILLAGE,

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.4148 of 2022

¶15

..2..

¶16

ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER KALA, D/O K.K. BABY, KALUVILAYIL, EAST OF GURUPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688006

¶17

BY ADVS. RAMESH P

¶18

SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

..3..

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.4148 of 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2022

¶24

I have heard Sri.Mathew James, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ramesh.P, the learned counsel for the respondents and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶25

This Crl.M.C has been filed challenging the

¶26

proceedings initiated under section 27(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, 'the DV Act') before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha (for short, 'the court below').

¶27

The petitioners herein are the respondents in MC No.67/2016. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondent herein are the petitioners in MC No.67/2016. The MC No.67/2016 was allowed directing the petitioners herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. Thereafter, the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed CMP No.38/2019 before the court below to enforce the said order.

¶28

The respondents have approached this court challenging CMP No.38/2019 on the ground that the entire

¶29

..4..

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.4148 of 2022

¶31

dispute between the parties have been settled as per an agreement executed between them. The said agreement has been produced as Annexure A5. I went through the recitals in the agreement. There is nothing to show that there is a settlement with regard to the payment of maintenance. Hence, the court below can very well proceed with CMP No.38/2019. The petitioners are free to take up all the contentions including the contention that the dispute has been settled between the parties in CMP No.38/2019.

¶32

With these observations, Crl.M.C is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶34

APA

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.4148 of 2022

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4148/2022

¶38

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 27/2/2017 FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA IN O.P.(OTHERS) 37/2016 Annexure A2 . TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/07/2017 IN MC NO. 67/2016 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2018 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA, CRLMP NO 6864/2017 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 229/2017 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 38/2019 DATED 7.01.2019 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.11.2020 BETWEEN THE 4TH PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP 38/2019 IN M.C 67/2016 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA

Shinekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinekumar v. State of Kerala

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

Ramseena Vs State of Kerala

Food Corporation of India Vs M.B.Vijayaraghavan Nair and Another

Firdous Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Kochuthresia @ Shiny Vs State of Kerala

Binoop Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor