Kerala High Court
Jijo.C vs Jasmine Mathew on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:49962
Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 267 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2020 IN Crl.A NO.66
OF 2020 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2020 IN MC NO.13 OF 2018 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JIJO.C, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, VALYARAVEEDU CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
2 VALSAMMA CHACKO, AGED 62 YEARS VALYARAVEEDU, CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.AJITHA C.G. KUM.K.J.SARANYA RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 JASMINE MATHEW W/O.JIJO.C, VALYARAVEEDU, CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT MEKKADU VEEDU, PULINKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688502.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SMT.BHANU THILAK SRI.SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 2 ORDER Respondents in M.C.No.13/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari, have filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 01.01.2020 of the learned Magistrate which was upheld by the judgment dated 07.12.2018 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. As per the above verdicts of the courts below, the aggrieved person in M.C.No.13/2018 was granted reliefs by way of a protection order, residence order and maintenance as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the Act').
2. The revision petitioners herein are the husband and mother-in-law of the aggrieved person. Alleging that the first revision petitioner has been subjecting the aggrieved person to domestic violence and refusing to pay maintenance to her and her children, the petition was filed under Section 12 of the Act before the learned Magistrate. It was alleged in the said petition that the aggrieved person had to take shelter at her parental residence due to the tortures on the part of the first revision petitioner. In addition to the reliefs of maintenance and residence, the aggrieved person also 2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 3 sought the realisation of the value of gold ornaments allegedly misappropriated by the first revision petitioner and compensation for the injuries sustained at the hands of the first revision petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate limited the reliefs to the orders of protection, residence and maintenance. The revision petitioners were accordingly restrained from committing, aiding or abetting physical assault or mental abuse or refusing to provide maintenance or doing any other acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved person, and she was permitted to live in the shared household. The first revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person and Rs.5,000/- each to her two children.
3. The revision petitioners preferred appeal before the Sessions Court contending that the learned Magistrate did not afford opportunity to them to adduce evidence, and that the reliefs granted to the aggrieved persons were unsustainable. The learned Sessions Judge analysed the rival contentions, made a re-appreciation of the evidence and arrived at the finding that there was absolutely no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 4 07.12.2020 in Crl.A.No.66/2020. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the Appellate Court, the revision petitioners are here before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent/aggrieved person.
5. As already stated above, the main challenge of the revision petitioners against the order passed by the learned Magistrate is that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to them to adduce evidence against the claim of the aggrieved person. According to the revision petitioners, right from the very beginning of the case, the learned Magistrate took a vindictive stand against them. It is further contended that the aggrieved person who occupied the position as a Director of the automobile business conducted by the first revision petitioner, had weakened the business by withdrawing money, and by writing letters to banks and financial institutions to keep herself away from the future liabilities. Another contention raised by the revision petitioners is that, the first revision petitioner lost all his business due to mental as well as financial problems.
6. The contention of the revision petitioners that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence, is 2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 5 factually incorrect, as held by the Appellate Court in the judgment in appeal. It is seen from the judgment of the Appellate Court that the relevant portion of the proceedings sheet of the Trial Court from 20.05.2019 to 01.01.2020 has been extracted therein, while deciding against the contention of the revision petitioners that they were not given opportunity to adduce evidence. It is apparent from the above entries in the proceedings sheet of the Trial Court that, the revision petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, but their attempt was to procrastinate the proceedings. The revision petitioners had filed petitions to re-open evidence on three occasions. The first two petitions filed in that regard were allowed by the Trial Court, subject to payment of costs. However, the revision petitioners did not avail the opportunity granted by the Trial Court to adduce any evidence. Even though the third petition filed by the revision petitioners for re-opening the evidence was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30.12.2019, it could be seen from the relevant entry in the proceedings sheet that it was so dismissed when it was found that the first revision petitioner, who was present before the court, was not ready to adduce evidence and his counsel was not ready to advance arguments. It is true that, on two occasions, the Trial Court 2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 6 had adjourned the case due to no sitting. So also, on two occasions, the case happened to be adjourned at the request of the aggrieved person. But a perusal of the relevant entries in the proceedings sheet of the Trial Court from 20.05.2019 to 01.01.2020 would reveal that the revision petitioners were resorting to dilatory tactics by not caring to adduce evidence despite the trial court acceding to their request to reopen the evidence on two occasions. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioners that the trial court failed to afford opportunity to them to adduce evidence, is totally baseless.
7. On merits, it is seen that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have rightly appreciated the facts and evidence, and arrived at the finding that the reliefs granted to the aggrieved person were perfectly in order. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, the first revision petitioner had not denied his business or income, or raise a contention that he was not having the means to provide maintenance to the aggrieved person and her children. On the other hand, it was contended by the first revision petitioner that he had been paying maintenance including the educational expenses of the children. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly arrived at the finding 2025:KER:49962 Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 7 that the aggrieved person and her children were entitled for the reliefs of maintenance and residence, in addition to a protection order restraining the revision petitioners from resorting to domestic violence. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the above regard. Needless to say that the present revision is devoid of merit.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2025:KER:49962
Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 8
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 267/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.285/2020 DATED
19/6/2020 OF NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
NO.3557/2024
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. (OTHERS)
NO.177/2020 DATED 14.7.2023 OF HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA