CRL.R.P NO. 461/2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 461 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A No.274/2015 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, PALAKKAD
MC 47/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O.KALADHARAN, NEAR VISWABHARATHI COLLEGE,
KONGAD, PALAKKAD.
2 SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.KALADHARAN, NEAR VISWABHARATHI COLLEGE,
KONGAD, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DEVAKI, AGED 76 YEARS,
W/O.LATE KALADHARAN, KUTTUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
KOLPADAM, MANIKKASSERY, KONGAD, PALAKKAD-678 431.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
R1 BY SMT.K.VIJINA
R2 BY SRI.SANJEETHA RAJ-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P NO. 461/2018 2
O R D E R
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order in Crl.A No.274/2015 dated 31.1.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, (for short 'the appellate court') confirming the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Palakkad (for short 'the trial court') in M.C No.47/2012 dated 11.5.2015.
2. The first respondent herein is the stepmother of the petitioners. The first respondent filed M.C.No.47/2012 against the petitioners invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the DV Act'). The prayer was to grant an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance. The trial court after hearing both sides directed the petitioners herein to pay Rs.1,500/- each per month to the 1 st respondent as maintenance from 13.6.2012 onwards. The appellate court confirmed the said order. Challenging the orders of the trial court CRL.R.P NO. 461/2018 3 and the appellate court, the revision petitioners have approached this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the first respondent is getting monthly pension of Rs.700/- and that she is having a daughter and no application has been moved against the said order claiming maintenance. These points were considered by the courts below and found that the revision petitioners are legally bound to maintain the 1 st respondent. The said finding of fact cannot be called in question under the exercise of the power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. No impropriety or illegality in the impugned order has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that as per the interim arrangement, Rs.2,000/- is paid CRL.R.P NO. 461/2018 4 to the 1st respondent every month. The counsel seeks three months' time to deposit the balance amount. The revision petitioners are granted three months' time from today to clear the entire arrears of maintenance.
The Crl.Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab