Kerala High Court
Kiran Kumar vs Prameela on 10 December, 2015
Author: P. Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 118 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.150/2015 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II,
KASARAGOD DATED 10/12/2015.
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC. NO.171/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, KASARAGOD DATED 29/05/2015.
........
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIRAN KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN,
NEAR NITHYANANDA BHAJAN MANDIR,
ANGADIPADAVU BANGARA MANJESWARA,
MANJESHWAR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT & STATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PRAMEELA, AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O. DAMODHARA, LAXMI NAGAR, KELAGINAMANE,
NEAR BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE GATE, UPPALA POST,
MANJESHWARA TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
P. UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2016
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order obtained by his wife under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, 'the D.V.Act'). She brought M.C.No.171/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, claiming various reliefs under the special law including protection order, maintenance order, and monetary relief by way of value of the ornaments appropriated by her husband. The revision petitioner herein entered appearance, and resisted the claim on the contention that he had not appropriated any ornament of his wife, that he had not, at any time, done anything amounting domestic violence, and that he is not liable to pay maintenance to her. The trial court conducted an enquiry in the proceeding. The wife examined herself as PW1, and also his brother as PW2 to prove the monetary claim. Exts.P1 and P2 were also proved by her. The Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2016 2 husband did not adduce any evidence during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the wife is entitled to get maintenance order, protection order, and also value of the ornaments appropriated by him. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate passed orders on 29.05.2015 directing the husband to pay maintenance to his wife @ Rs.3,000- per month, to pay an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs as the value of 10 sovereigns of ornaments appropriated by him, @ Rs.20,000/- per sovereign, and also restraining him from committing any act of domestic violence against the wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband approached the Court of Session, Kasaragod with Crl.Appeal No.150/2015 under Section 29 of the D.V.Act. In appeal, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 10.12.2015. The husband is now before this Court in revision.
2. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the entire materials, I find no scope or reason for interferance in the concurrent findings made by the courts below. The wife has a genuine grievance that her husband has been residing with one Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2016 3 Sharmila. His connection with Sharmila is proved Ext.P2 certificate. The husband did not turn up to adduce any contra evidence. It is practically admitted that he has been residing with one Sharmila. It is a long standing "living together"
relationship sans a legal marriage. The respondent has no dispute regarding the status of the petitioner as his legally wedded wife. It stands proved that the husband has been residing with Sharmila for years after abandoning his wife. No doubt, she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. I find that the maintenance claim was rightly allowed by the trial court. As regards quantum of maintenance also, there is no scope for interference. The respondent did not adduce any evidence, proving his actual income. That the wife had 20 sovereigns of ornaments at the time of marriage is proved by the evidence of the petitioner and her husband. It is true that Ext.P1 is only an estimate from the jewelery. This will have no legal value. However, the oral evidence given by the claimant and her brother convincingly prove that she had that much quantity of ornaments at the time of marriage. The wife is definite that her husband has appropriated her ornaments. The husband did not Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2016 4 turn up to adduce any contra evidence or to deny the allegations. He did not turn up to say what quantity of ornaments his wife had at the time of marriage, and what quantity she had when she left the matrimonial home. Thus, practically, I find that the wife's evidence is acceptable on the point. The lady has also given evidence proving the acts of cruelty at the hands of her husband. This is not denied, and there is no contra evidence. I find that protection order was also rightly granted by the trial court, and that all the reliefs were rightly confirmed by the appellate court. I find no reason or scope for interferance in revision.
In the result, this revision is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2016 5