A criminal revision petition challenging the order dismissing an application to modify maintenance under the DV Act was dismissed. The court held that the finding of fact regarding the petitioner's inability to drive but capacity for other work was not open to interference.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
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.
CRL.R.P NO. 568/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 568 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CM.P NO.8687/2016 IN MC 99/2010 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER:
KALAJAYAN, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KUTTYPURATHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
WARD NO 18, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY.
BY ADV SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 MINIMOLD/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 46 YEARS, PANATHARA NIRATHU, WARD NO 7,CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY 688 524.2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682 031.R1 BY ADV SMT.G.KRISHNAKUMARI
R2 SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P NO. 568/2018
2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Cherthala (for short ‘the court below’) dismissing an application filed under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘DV Act’).
CRL.R.P NO. 568/2018
3
counsel for the petitioner, Smt.G.Krishna Kumari, the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
does not have any job or income. The amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the court below and confirmed by the appellate court appears to be very reasonable.
modification has been sought mainly on two grounds. (i) The petitioner is suffering from bilateral fibrinous central serous chorio retinopathy and as such he is not in a position to drive the vehicle in public. (ii) The 1st respondent is now working as a Sales Girl and earns Rs.9,000/- per month. The court below after evaluation of the evidence found that the petitioner is unable to drive the vehicle but nothing on record would show that he is disabled from doing other work. So far as the contention of the
CRL.R.P NO. 568/20184
petitioner that the 1st respondent is working as Sales Girl, no evidence has been adduced. The court below after evaluating the rival contentions found that the modification sought for cannot be allowed. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered in a revision filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Crl.Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ab
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act should be accepted.
Kalajayan
Minimol
State of Kerala
Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court