IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 670 OF 2019
CRA 31/2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II,
PATHANAMTHITTA
MC 31/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAJAN SKARIAH
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SKARIA, AZHAKATHUMANNIL HOUSE,
PERUMPETTY MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE,
MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEWS
GIBI.C.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 VINCY RAJAN
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O RAJAN,
AZHAKATHUMANNIL HOUSE, PERUMPETTY MURI,
PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS.SMT.K.K.RAZIA
NIKHIL R
R2 BY SRI G SUDHEER- Public Prosecutor
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..2..
ORDER
This Crl.Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.31/2017 dated 28th March, 2019 confirming the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the trial court') in M.C.No.31/2013 dated 15 th May 2017.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband. The 1 st respondent is the wife. The wife filed petition as M.C.No.31/2013 at the trial court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'D.V.Act') seeking various reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. The trial court after analysis of evidence granted protection order, residence order as well as maintenance order. The appellate court in appeal confirmed the order of the trial court. Challenging the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court the husband has preferred this criminal revision petition.
3. I have heard Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband, Sri.R.Nikhil, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/wife and Sri.G.Sudheer, Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..3..
the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent.
4. The marital relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Admittedly they were married on 08.10.1981. It is also not in dispute that the husband and wife lived in the shared household after the marriage. However, the husband has set up a contention that, though the shared household stands in the name of the wife, it was purchased utilizing his fund. The wife has taken a contention that the husband has exercised various acts of domestic violence against her. She has also raised a contention that the husband is trying to evict her from the shared household. It is her further case that in spite of sufficient means, the husband failed to maintain her. It is in these circumstances, she approached the trial court. An illicit relationship with one Aliyamma was also raised by the wife. The husband denied the allegation that he subjected the wife to domestic violence. He has also denied the allegation that he tried to oust the wife from the shared household. On the other hand, his case is that, shared household was in fact purchased utilizing his fund and the wife has other place to stay. He has also taken up a contention that he has no legal liability to maintain the wife.
Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..4..
5. On the side of the wife, the wife herself gave evidence as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3. Exts.P1 to P15 were marked. The husband gave evidence as DW1 and one witness on his side was examined as DW2. Exts.D1 to D18 were marked. After trial, the court below found that the wife has succeeded in proving the case set up by her and accordingly, the following reliefs were granted:
"1. The respondent shall not commit any physical, verbal, mental or emotional abuse against the petitioner in any manner.
2. The respondent shall not in any manner disturb the peaceful life of the petitioner at the shared household as mentioned in the affidavit.
3. The respondent is also restrained from dispossessing or in any manner alienating the dispossessing of the shared household.
4. The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of the litigation."
In appeal, the reliefs granted by the trial court were confirmed.
Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..5..
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued before this Court that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence tendered by the husband at all and the order was passed, solely relying on the evidence adduced by the wife. The counsel submitted that, even though 18 documents were produced on the side of the husband, there was no discussion on those documents in the trial court's order. The counsel also submitted that, the appellate court, without applying its mind, simply reproduced the order of the trial court verbatim in the judgment. Since there is total lack of appreciation of the evidence by the courts below, this Court can interfere with the impugned order and judgment in revision, submitted the counsel.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the wife submitted that both the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence on record and granted the reliefs to the wife, which she is legally entitled.
8. I went through the order and judgment of the courts below as well as the records. The evidence on record would clearly show that PW1 clearly gave evidence about various instances of domestic violence exercised by the Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..6..
husband on her. Exts.P2 to P10 documents were also relied on by both the courts below in support of the case set up by the wife that she was subjected to domestic violence. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence of PW1, found that the instances of physical assault and abuse upon her is made out from her own evidence. The said finding is confirmed by the appellate court. When the two courts concurrently found that the wife has succeeded in proving the domestic violence exercised by the husband on her, this Court is not inclined to re-examine the said finding of fact. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that both the courts below did not appreciate the evidence adduced on the side of the husband. I cannot accept the said argument. In paragraph 7 of the trial court judgment, the oral evidence adduced by the husband has been well discussed. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the documentary evidence adduced by the husband such as Exts.D1 series, Exts.D13 and D13(a) documents were discussed. It appears that the rest of the documents are not relevant to the facts of the case. It is not necessary to discuss the documents which are not germane for just decision of the case.
Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..7..
9. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C is to confer power upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is severely restricted and this Court under the exercise of the said jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence. In Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj and Others [(2015) 2 SCC 721], the Apex Court has held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of the evidence. Since there are concurrent findings of the two courts below, this Court shall be circumspect in invoking the revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. It is only if the decision rendered by the two courts below can be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records, evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the two courts below. I find no impropriety or illegality therein Crl.R.P.No.670 of 2019 ..8..
warranting interference on the finding under the exercise of revisional powers vested with this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj/kp