Kerala High Court
Krishnadas vs Sreelatha on 2 July, 2025
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1002 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.88 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
- IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2019 IN MC NO.3 OF 2017
OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
KRISHNADAS
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE BALAN, AARAPPATH HOUSE, DEVI NAGAR,
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 SREELATHA
D/O. KUNJAN, ARANIPADATH VEEDU, AZHIYANNUR P.O,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1013/2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1013 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.44 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
- IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2019 IN MC NO.3 OF 2017
OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
KRISHNADAS
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE BALAN, AARAPPATH HOUSE, DEVI NAGAR,
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 SREELATHA
D/O. KUNJAN, ARANIPADATH VEEDU, AZHIYANNUR P.O,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
4
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.KEERTHI M.
SHRI.ARJUN RAJA P.C.
SRI.N.RAGESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1002/2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
5
JUDGMENT
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1002/2024, 1013/2024] Both these revision petitions arose out of the common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad, in Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 and Crl.Appeal No.88/2019. The issue relates to the reliefs granted to the aggrieved person in M.C.No.3/2017 on the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Sreekrishnapuram. The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person approached the Grama Nyayalaya seeking various reliefs of protection, maintenance and other monetary remedies under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The learned Nyayadhikari, after evaluating the evidence adduced through the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2, and Exts.P1 to P3 from the part of the aggrieved person, and oral testimonies of DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 from the part of the revision petitioner herein, passed the order dated 23.01.2019, restraining the revision petitioner and his mother, from committing domestic violence upon the aggrieved person, and granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of order, to the aggrieved person.
3. Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 was filed by the revision petitioner herein against the aforesaid order of the learned 2025:KER:48137 Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024 6 Nyayadhikari. Crl.Appeal No.88/2019 was preferred by the aggrieved person, complaining that the learned Nyayadhikari erred in disallowing her claim for maintenance from the date of petition, and also by declining compensation to her. After considering both the above appeals, and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palakkad, rendered the impugned common judgment dated 11.06.2024, modifying the reliefs granted by the learned Nyayadhikari.
4. Dismissing Crl.Appeal No.44/2019, and allowing Crl.Appeal No.88/2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the aggrieved person, and directed that the payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- ordered by the learned Nyayadhikari, shall take effect from the date of petition onwards. It is the aforesaid common judgment, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
6. As already stated above, the learned Nyayadhikari passed the impugned order, after evaluating the evidence of the aggrieved person and one witness as PW1 and PW2, and three documents marked from her part as Exts.P1 to P3. The evidence of the revision petitioner herein through his oral testimony as DW1, and the testimony of another witness as DW2 and document marked as Ext.D1 were also appreciated by the learned Nyayadhikari. It is seen 2025:KER:48137 Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024 7 from the order passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, that after analysing the aforesaid evidence, she came to a conclusion that the domestic violence alleged by the aggrieved person, has been established. Evidence in the above regard has been re-appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the above finding of the learned Nyayadhikari.
7. As regards the claim of maintenance, the objection raised by the revision petitioner herein was that the aggrieved person has failed to establish his income. There was also a contention that the aggrieved person has been earning income from tuition classes and other sources. All those aspects have been rightly discussed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, and it has been held that the revision petitioner cannot evade from his responsibility to make payment of maintenance to the aggrieved person.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the aggrieved person is having sufficient source of income to maintain herself, has been found against by the court below, after evaluating the evidence. I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below. It is seen from the common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge that the finding regarding the entitlement of aggrieved person for compensation, has been arrived at, on the basis of sustainable reasons. The modification made by the Appellate Court in the above regard, cannot be interfered with in this revision 2025:KER:48137 Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024 8 proceedings, since there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the above findings. Likewise, the observation of the Appellate Court that there was no justification for the direction in the order of the learned Nyayadhikari, fixing the liability of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance with effect from the date of order, and declining to grant maintenance from the date of petition, is also well founded. It is the normal rule that the aggrieved persons, who claims maintenance from the opposite party are to be awarded maintenance amount with effect from the date of petition, unless there are convincing reasons to disallow the above claim, and restrict the maintenance with effect from the date of order.
9. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Nyayadhikari has not stated any reason for disallowing maintenance with effect from the date of petition. Therefore, the modification made by the appellate court in the above regard, is also in consonance with the principles of law. As a conclusion to the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad, in Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 and Crl.Appeal No.88/2019.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
sd/ G.GIRISH JUDGE jm/