Rajan Skariah vs Vincy Rajan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6025 Ker

          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