IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE23D DAY OF OCTOBER20131ST KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2054 of 2013 -------------------------------- Crl.A3502012 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED1806-2013 C.M.P.NO.774/2012 IN M.C.NO.242/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT.: -------------------------------------------------- S. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED47YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, LEKSHMI VIHAR, T.C. 4/488 KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND2D RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- 1. DIVYA, D/O.LATHAKUMARI, VIDYA BIHAR, KODUNGANCHERI PANGODU.P.O., KALLARA, PANGODU VILLAGE ANAKUDI MURI, NEDUMANGAD. PIN-695541.
2. LEELA D/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, LEKSHMI VIHAR, T.C. 4/488 KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2310-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: stu K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2054 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the 1st respondent in C.M.P.No.774 of 2012 in M.C.No.242 of 2012 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram as well as the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.350 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Session Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The order under challenge was passed by the Magistrate under Sec.23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act').
2. The 1st respondent sought for an interim direction, prohibiting the commission of any domestic violence against them, protection orders, residence orders and interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month. The allegation in the said petition was that the revision petitioner has been misbehaving by manhandling the 1st respondent and also Crl.R.P.No.2054 of 2013 2 indulges in using filthy words. It is also alleged that the revision petitioner contracted the marriage without disclosing that he is married and is having children. So also, he has been neglecting to maintain her and refused to pay maintenance allowance, though he earns a considerable amount as monthly income.
3. According to the 1st respondent, she intends to live with them and they are unable to reside peacefully in their residence. She prayed for an interim direction to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/- per month. After considering the averments in the affidavit, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner not to commit any acts of domestic violence and to provide monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent. This order was challenged in appeal. After considering the apprehensions raised in the petition, the appellate court also confirmed the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate. This order is under challenge in this revision Crl.R.P.No.2054 of 2013 3 petition.
4. Going by the impugned judgment, it could be seen that the impugned order was passed by the court below on prima facie satisfaction, on the basis of materials placed before the court below. The marriage is admitted and it follows that the revision petitioner is legally liable to pay maintenance allowance to his wife. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was an employee under Railway Service and he is drawing 15,000/- per month as salary. So, I find that the interim order directing to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- is just and proper and does not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction.
5. As far as the reliefs under interim relief under Sec.18 and 19 are concerned. A primary satisfaction of the court below is sufficient to pass an interim order. In view of the fact that the legislation itself is intended to provide protection to the rights of women, who are victims of violence of any kind of occurrence within the family. Crl.R.P.No.2054 of 2013 4 Therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in granting an interim order against domestic violence also. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case after trial within a period of three months from today. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HARILAL, JUDGE. Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge.