Kerala High Court
S.Christudas vs Pushpam Morais on 23 September, 2010
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27117 of 2010(L)
1. S.CHRISTUDAS,AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUSHPAM MORAIS,AGED 37 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KARODU,
For Petitioner :SRI.ZAKEER HUSAIN M.K.
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27117 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Petitioner is challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him pursuant to Ext.P4 notice, issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The default pertains to various amount covered under Ext.P1 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara in a proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act). In Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance to the 1st respondent at the rate of Rs.7,500/- and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to her. It is pointed out that the amounts awarded will fall within the purview of Section 12 of the Act. The method for enforcement of such orders is prescribed under Rule 6(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, which says that such orders can be enforced in the same manner as laid down under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The enforcement of any order passed under Section 125 W.P.(C).27117/10-L -2- Cr.P.C. is prescribed under Section 125(3) therein. It is pertinent to note that recovery by recourse to the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is not contemplated under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Under the above circumstances, challenge against revenue recovery proceedings, which is initiated for realising the amount covered under the provisions of the Act, seems to be sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 are not in a position to point out any provisions to the contrary, which will enable recovery of the amounts by recourse to revenue recovery steps.
3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the amount due under Ext.P1 order can be recovered by resorting to other remedies available under the relevant provisions of the Act, as well as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb