IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 14TH POUSHA 193 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 642 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRA.14/2012 of SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DIVISION MC.30/2011 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 5 YEARS S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, V.P. HOUSE, MULLA MANZIL MATHOTTAM, ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.M.ASOKAN SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- 1. KAMARU @ KAMARUNNISA, AGED 3 YEARS D/O. HASSAN, RESIDING AT LULU NIVAS, 41/3821 PERUMKUZHIPADAM,CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-PIN-673003.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA-PIN-682031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MNS Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 642 of 2012 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT OF KOZHIKODE IN MC NO 189/2011 DATED 6 1.2012 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2012 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2013. ORDER
The challenge in the above revision petition is against a common judgment dated 24.2.2012 in Crl.A.Nos.14 of 2012 and 100 of 2012 of the court of Sessions, Kozhikode division, at the instance of the counter petitioner in CMP No.3303 of 2011 and CMP No.276 of 2012 in Crl.M.C.No.30 of 2011, which is a proceeding instituted upon the petition preferred by the wife of the present revision petitioner, who is the respondent therein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and I have perused the orders of the courts below.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the judgment, the appellate court has directed the petitioner to make payment at the rate of `15,000/- per month to the respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, for the 2 Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2012 rented house building which the petitioner herself can find out for her residence comfortably till the main proceedings are disposed of and final decision is taken by the trial court.
4. It is beyond dispute that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was taken place on 11.6.2009 and there was issue in the said wed lock. However, difference of opinion had taken place among the spouses, which ultimately lead to the filing of M.C.No.30 of 2011 in the trial court, under the provisions of the above Act. The proceedings before the trial court are still pending and no final decision has been arrived. While the above M.C. was pending before the trial court, the wife of the revision petitioner moved CMP No.3303 of 2011 with a prayer to restrain the revision petitioner/respondent from forcibly evicting her from the rented house. But subsequently, the wife of the revision petitioner was evicted from the said rented house and therefore, the wife has filed another petition, ie., CMP No.276 of 2012 under section 31 of the said Act. The trial court, while disposing 3 Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2012 the said petition, allowed the wife of the revision petitioner to take her personal belongings from the shared household and for which, she can seek assistance of the concerned SHO who is directed to provide necessary assistance to the wife of the revision petitioner for the above purpose and the petitioner is directed to arrange an alternate house within two weeks and also directed to report compliance. Challenging the above two orders, the petitioners herein preferred two separate appeals which now stand disposed of by the lower appellate court in the manner indicated above. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the amount fixed by the lower appellate court, which was ordered to be paid by the revision petitioner being the rent for the house to be find out for the wife of the revision petitioner, is highly exorbitant and it is unaffordable for the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the learned Magistrate has issued a direction directing the revision petitioner to find out an alternate 4 Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2012 accommodation for the wife of the revision petitioner, he failed to comply with that direction and it was under the above backdrop, the appellate court issued the direction directing the revision petitioner to pay `15,000/- per month, which according to me, is only reasonable.
6. From the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears that the revision petitioner and his wife were resided together in a rented house from where the wife was evicted. Though the revision petitioner was directed by the trial court to find out alternate accommodation for the wife of the revision petitioner, he did not comply with that and thus the lower appellate court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of `15,000/- per month, being the rent. This Court, in this revision petition, is not in a position to verify and ascertain whether the amount ordered by the appellate court is exorbitant or not. It is already beyond dispute that the appellate court was constrained to pass such a direction on the failure of the revision petitioner to comply with the direction issued by 5 Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2012 the trial court that, to find out alternate accommodation for the 1st respondent/wife. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate court and the direction issued in favour of the wife of the revision petitioner, who is the beneficiary of the above act. In the result, I find no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge