Kerala High Court
T.G.Sasi vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1700 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2008 IN CRA NO.6 OF 2008
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2007 IN MC NO.23 OF 2007 OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
T.G.SASI
S/O GOPALAN, SANTHI BHAVAN, ARAKKULAM KARA,
ARAKKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI - 685 591.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.RAFFEEKH.K
SRI.UNNI. K.K. EZHUMATTOOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 C.K. SANTHA
SANTHI BHAVAN, ARAKKULAM KARA, ARAKKULAM
VILLAGE.
R1 BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1700 of 2008
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1700 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
ORDER
The 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(PWDV Act) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha.
As per the order dated 06.12.2007, the learned Magistrate
allowed that application. The petitioner preferred an appeal
under Section 29 of the PWDV Act. The appellate court did not
accept the contentions of the petitioner. The appeal was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this
revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent.
3. The operative part of the order of the learned
Magistrate reads thus;
''xxx the respondent is prohibited from committing any
act of domestic violence and from attempting to
communicate in any form whatsoever to the aggrieved
person including personal, oral or written, electronic or
telephonic contact and from causing any violence to
the children who give assistance to the petitioner from
domestic violence. The residence order is passed u/s
19 and the respondent is ordered to remove the lock
he has newly fitted to the house and hand over the key
of the house to the petitioner and remove himself from
the shared household. Respondent is also ordered to
pay one half of the income of one acre of property of
the petitioner at Cheradi from the date of this order.
The claim of the petitioner for relief u/s 19(1)(c) for
Rs.5000/- per mensum for the educational expenses of
the elder son is dismissed.''
(underline supplied)
4. In order to grant the reliefs, the learned Magistrate
considered the evidence of the 2nd respondent, who was
examined as PW1 and the petitioner, who was examined as
CPW1. Documentary evidence, namely, Exts.P1 to P5 and
Exts.D1 to D5 were also considered. The trial court as well as
the appellate court appreciated the evidence in detail. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there was no sufficient evidence to find that the petitioner had
committed any domestic violence. It is seen from the
documentary evidence that the petitioner had to take
treatment on account of psychiatric complaints. Not only
sexual violence but also emotional excesses had been alleged
and substantiated against the petitioner. After considering the
evidence in that regard in detail, both the courts concurrently
found that the petitioner had committed domestic violence. As
regards the residence order also, the courts below considered
every aspect of the matter and gave sufficient reasons to
grant an order. The situation of the 2 nd respondent and
children, who were then studying, was considered for taking a
favourable decision in favour of the 2nd respondent.
5. Having had anxious consideration of the materials
on record, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent
finding of the courts leading to the grant of protection order
and residence order.
6. The 2nd respondent claimed that one acre of
property in dispute belongs to her. The trial court found that
the said property was in possession of the petitioner but the
2nd respondent is its owner. Accordingly, the petitioner was
ordered to pay half of the income therefrom to the 2 nd
respondent, but without quantifying what was the income
derived from that property. For two reasons the said order is
unsustainable in law; firstly, that rival claims of the parties
over that property has not been adjudicated, and secondly,
that the court did not quantify the income derived from that
property. When it is ordered to pay half of the income from
the said one acre of property without ascertaining the
quantum, that remains an un-executable order, especially,
under the PWDV Act. Therefore, the said order is bad in law.
7. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in part.
The protection order and residence order are confirmed. The
order directing the petitioner to pay half of the income derived
from one acre of the property at Cheradi is set aside.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dxy/dkr
