Jayaprakash vs Devaki
2022 Latest Caselaw 5861 Ker

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

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

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