Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.A.T.Anilkumar on 7 February, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 684 of 2018
M.C.NO.23 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)
GOPINATH,
S/O.PADMANABHA MENON, CHERIYAVEETTIL,
MELANGATTU, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM, PIN-691585.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2. DR.JAYASREE,
D/O.PUTHUVATHU SREEDHARAN, PUTHUVATHU(H),
MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
PIN-691585.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SMT M K PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2018,THE COURT
ON 07-02-2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 684 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION.
ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER.
ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION.
ANNEXURE D THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN MP NO.5076/17.
ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy / P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
=================
Crl.M.C.No.684 of 2018
=================
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2018
ORDER
Petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.23 of 2015, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur, initiated by the second respondent herein. She sought a compensation of Rs.1 Crore from the petitioner herein under section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. After the marriage of the petitioner herein with her, a child was born. It was alleged by her that, she was abused and harassed by the petitioner herein. As a sequel to the family dispute, the present complaint was laid. Along with the M.C, C.M.P.No.408 of 2015 was filed seeking attachment of Annexure-B schedule properties which included two items of immovable properties and FDs in various banks totalling to Rs.22,51,378/-.
2. After the appearance of the petitioner herein, he moved Crl.M.P.No.5076 of 2017 in M.C.No.23 of 2015 with a prayer to release a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from attachment and to substitute another item of property as security for the amount sought to be released. He stated that, he is the owner in possession of Ares of 3.64 in survey number 151/2, property of 6.07 ares in survey No.154 and another item having 3.84 Ares in survey No.152 in Crl.M.C.684/18 2 Mukundapuram taluk. He sought for receiving the above properties as security and for releasing the above amount. It was vehemently opposed by the second respondent herein contending that, if the attachment is lifted and the amount is released, that will cause serious prejudice to the second respondent herein. Considering the strong objection raised by the second respondent, court below refused to vacate the order and dismissed the application. This is under challenge in this proceeding.
3. The learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Premchand, objecting to the very sustainability of the Crl.M.C contended that the impugned order is successful to an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act and consequently, the Crl.M.C is not sustainable. It was further contended that Section 29 implies the word b