Kerala High Court
Sunil Singh vs Suja J.S on 5 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 420 OF 2024
CRA NO.180 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT.-TRIAL
OF ABKARI ACT CASES,NEYYATTINKARA ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 03.07.2023 IN CRMP.1685/2022 IN MC.NO.59 OF
2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
II,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
SUNIL SINGH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.SAIMON Y, SINGH NIVAS, NILAMAMOODU,
KUNNATHUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695504
BY ADVS.
BIJU.C.ABRAHAM
THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND STATE:
1 SUJA J.S
JAYA BHAVAN, KOYIKKAVILAKAM, PARASSALA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
2 SANTHIMALAR SELVI
JAYA BHAVAN, KOYIKKAVIAKAM, PARASSALA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH
COURT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
R1 & R2 BY ADV MITHUN PAVANAN
R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO.420 OF 2024 : 2 :
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
This petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the challenge in this
revision is the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.180/2023, dated
27.2.2024, confirming order in Crl.M.P.No.1685/2022 in
M.C.No.59/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/respondent in the M.C. and in the Crl.M.P. as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2,
who are the petitioners in the M.C. and Crl.M.P.
3. I shall refer the parties in this revision as 'husband'
and 'wife', for convenience.
4. Precisely telling, M.C.No.59/2022 was instituted by
the wife, against the husband under Section 23 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (for short, 'the DV Act'
hereinafter), seeking reliefs under the DV Act. Along with the
petition, Crl.M.P.No.1685/2022 also filed and sought for
interim maintenance. The contention raised by the wife
before the Magistrate Court is that, she did not have any
means of maintenance and the husband, who has been
working in KSEB as sub Engineer, Poonthura, drawing a
salary of Rs.89,347/-, is capable of maintaining her.
5. The husband resisted the interim maintenance,
mainly raising a contention that the wife has been living
separately after maintaining illicit connection with one
person, named Raveendran and therefore, she could not claim
maintenance under the DV Act.
6. The trial court marked Ext.D1 salary certificate as
that of the husband and after having addressed the
contention raised by the husband, the trial court finally
granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
month. Though Crl.Appeal No.180/2023 was filed before the
Sessions court, challenging the said order, the learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the interim
order passed by the learned Magistrate.
7. The learned counsel for the husband/revision
petitioner vehemently argued that the wife has been residing
along with a paramour and granting interim maintenance to
the wife, who resides along with a paramour, is morally and
legally incorrect. He also submitted that the husband could
very well prove the allegation during the trial in the main
proceedings. Therefore, the verdicts under challenge herein,
to be interfered and set aside.
8. While resisting this contention, the learned counsel
for the wife would submit that the allegation that the wife has
been residing along with a paramour, is absolutely a false
allegation and the wife was forced to leave the company of
the husband, because he has been maintaining illicit
relationship with another lady.
9. Going through the objection filed by the husband,
no materials placed in support of the allegation to the effect
that the wife has been residing along with a paramour.
Similarly, nowhere in the main petition or in the interim
petition, the wife raised a contention that the husband has
been residing with another lady, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the wife, now before this Court.
10. Coming to the interim orders under challenge, the
learned Magistrate addressed Ext.D1, showing a total salary
of Rs.1,14,848/- to the petitioner and the take home salary as
Rs.89,347/-. In consideration of the same, negativing the
contention raised by the husband, interim maintenance at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- is granted and the same was confirmed by
the appellate court also.
11. Mere allegation raised to the effect that the wife
has been residing with a paramour or leading an adulterous
life, is not a ground to deny the interim maintenance.
Thus, it is held that the verdicts impugned do not require
any interference and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
It is specifically made clear that the entitlement of
maintenance and the quantum thereof, if any, shall be
decided in the main petition, as per law and untrammelled by
the observations hereinabove.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
