Renjith .R vs Renju Pillai

Kerala High Court

Renjith .R vs Renju Pillai on 18 July, 2025

                                                           1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
  FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
                CRL.REV.PET NO. 299 OF 2023
      JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2022 IN Crl.A NO.63 OF 2020 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM /
III ADDL.M.A.C.T./ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
      ORDER DATED 28.05.2020 IN MC NO.78 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, S.PARAVUR

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

    1     RENJITH .R
          AGED 37 YEARS
          S/O RAJASEKHARA KURUPPU, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
          KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 691302

    2     VIJAYAKUMARI.S
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O RAJASEKHARA KURUPPU, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
          KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 691302

    3     RAJASHEKHARA KURUPPU
          AGED 65 YEARS
          S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
          KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT
          PIN 691 302


          BY ADV SHRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER-STATE:

    1     RENJU PILLAI
          AGED 34 YEARS
          W/O RENJITH R, PARAVILA VEEDU, HARIHARAPURAM P.O,
          RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU, KALAKKODU P.O,
          POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302
                                               2025:KER:53679
Crl.R.P No.299/2023

                        2


    2     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031


          BY ADVS. 
          SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
          SHRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR



          SRI SUDHEER G., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:53679
Crl.R.P No.299/2023

                                     3


                                     ORDER

The revision petition is filed by the original respondents in MC No.78/2016 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravoor. The above MC was filed by the aggrieved person, seeking various reliefs under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 28.05.2020, restraining the opposite parties from physically and mentally harassing the aggrieved person and her child. The 1st petitioner herein, who is the 1st respondent in that MC, was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to his child and Rs.7000/- to his wife, the aggrieved person. It was further directed that the 1st petitioner herein shall deposit Rs.50,000/- in the account of the aggrieved person within 30 days for taking a rented house and shall deposit rent of Rs.5000/- before the 5th of every month.

2. The above verdict of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the revision petitioners in appeal before the Additional Sessions Court IV, Kollam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the judgment dated 12.07.2022 in Crl.Appeal No.63/2020, slightly modified the reliefs granted 2025:KER:53679 Crl.R.P No.299/2023 4 by the learned Magistrate. The protection order against the 1st petitioner herein and his parents against harassing the aggrieved person and her child, was retained as such. So also, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Magistrate at the rate of Rs.5000/- to the child and Rs.7000/- to the aggrieved person (wife of the 1st revision petitioner) was retained as such by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In addition to the above reliefs, it was directed that the petitioner herein shall pay monthly rent of Rs.5000/- to the aggrieved person as directed by the Trial Court. However, the direction of the Trial Court to deposit Rs.50,000/- for taking a house on rent, was set aside.

3. Aggrieved by the above directions of the Appellate Court in the judgment rendered in Crl.Appeal No.63/2020, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the 1st petitioner is employed as a Mechanic in Kuwait, and that he may not be able to afford payment of a total amount of Rs.17000/- per month to the aggrieved person in accordance with the directions of the 2025:KER:53679 Crl.R.P No.299/2023 5 Appellate Court. Thus, it is stated that the direction of the Appellate Court in the above regard requires modification.

6. It is well settled that the contention regarding the inability of the husband to make payment to his wife and children for their maintenance, due to the absence of sufficient income, cannot be raised unless the amount claimed is so exorbitant that the person to whom the direction is given may not be able to earn such income. As far as the present case is concerned, the bare minimum amounts of Rs.5000/- and Rs.7000/- respectively, are ordered to be paid as maintenance to the child and wife of the 1st revision petitioner. It is not possible to say that the aforesaid amount is exorbitant, taking into account the prevailing price index and cost of living. The child of the 1st respondent is said to be studying in a CBSE school, and it is of no doubt that a considerable amount will be required for her to meet the child's educational expenses. That apart, for meeting expenses of food and nourishment also, the amount of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court cannot be said to be excessive. Likewise, the amount of Rs.7000/- ordered to be paid as maintenance to the aggrieved person is also perfectly reasonable. As regards the amount of Rs.5000/- ordered to be paid for accommodation to 2025:KER:53679 Crl.R.P No.299/2023 6 the aggrieved person and her child, the Trial Court and Appellate Court cannot be found at fault. It is the duty of the 1st revision petitioner to ensure that his wife and child are provided with suitable accommodation to take shelter.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the wife of the 1st petitioner is a graduate and hence she would be able to fetch an income for herself. No such flimsy contentions could be raised to refuse maintenance to the wife and child of a person, since being a graduate does not mean that she would be able to earn income by availing a job.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the records, as well as the discussions in the judgment of the Appellate Court, and order of the Trial Court, I am of the view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment. Needless to say that the revision can only fail.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.