IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE10H DAY OF OCTOBER201318TH ASWINA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1190 of 2013 () -------------------------------- CRL.A2152012 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD MC942010 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDURG REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- T.M.JOMON, AGED32YEARS S/O LATE THOMAS, COOLIE RESIDING ATTHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE KUNNARU KARANTHATT P.O., RAMANTHALI VILLAGE TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.M.M.ANTO SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND R2 & 3 AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJITHA, AGED26YEARS D/O JOHN, LABOURER RESIDING ATVARIMATTAM HOUSE PULIYAMKULAM, NELLIYARA P.O., PARAPPA PARAPPA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK PIN:671 533 (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF VALLARIKKUNDU POLICE STATION) 2. ACHAMMA, AGED52YEARS W/O LATE THOMAS, NO EMPLOYMENT RESIDING ATTHANIMOOTTIL HOSUE, KUNNARU KARANTHATTP.O., RAMANTHALI VILLAGE THALIPARAMBA TALUK, PIN:670 308.
3. PRIYA, AGED19YEARS D/O LATE THOMAS, STUDENT RESIDING ATTHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUNNARU KARANTHATTP.O., RAMANTHALI VILLAGE THALIPARAMBA TALUK, PIN:
670. 308 (RESPONDENTS2AND3RESIDING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION) 4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1010-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: OKB K.HARILAL, J.
--------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1190 of 2013 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner was the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.215/12 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod as well as the 1st respondent in M.C.No.94/10 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Hosdurg. The above M.C. was filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying reliefs under Sections 18, 20 and 22. The trial court partly allowed the petition. The revision petitioner was apprehended from committing any act of domestic violence and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively, towards maintenance of the 1st respondent and the child. The revision petitioner was further directed to return Rs.1,50,000/- said to have been given to the 1st respondent at the time of marriage. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner had preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasargod with a petition to condone the delay of 292 days in Crl.R.P.1190/13 :2: filing the appeal. Going by the impugned order under challenge, it could be seen that the ground taken to condone the delay of 292 days was that he had to leave his native place, in search of employment, to Tamilnadu. The court below found that the said contention was a vague statement without disclosing the particulars of the place where he was residing during this period, etc. Nothing stated as to the date of departure from the native place or the date of arrival to the native place. So, that petition was dismissed and the same is under challenge in this Revision.
2. Though I am not satisfied with the averments in the petition to condone the delay, taking a lenient view, the revision petitioner is given a further opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In that view, the impugned order under challenge will stand set aside and the delay will stand condoned on certain conditions: i. The revision petitioner shall deposit the entire arrear of maintenance allowance due to the 1st respondent and her child under the order passed by the trial court within two months, provided that half of the entire arrear shall be Crl.R.P.1190/13 :3: deposited within one month and the balance shall be deposited within the next month. ii. The revision petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance allowance to the 1st respondent and her child as ordered by the trial court. If the revision petitioner satisfies the above conditions within the specified time, the learned Sessions Judge shall restore the appeal on files and pass order afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. Needless to say, in the event of failure to satisfy the conditions within the time, the order under challenge will stand in force. The Revision Petition is allowed. Sd/- (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.