Kerala High Court
Dr.Jayaboby.K vs Soosanna.C.V on 6 November, 2024
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/15TH KARTHIKA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2024 IN CRA
NO.287 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) III,
THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC
NO.26 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KUNNAMKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL/
RESPONDENTS IN CMP:
1 DR.JAYABOBY.K.
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.LIJI, KUTHOOR HOUSE,
KANNIPPAYYOOR.PO., BLOCK OFFICE ROAD,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680517
2 LIJI VARGHESE
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE JACOB, THEVERIL HOUSE,
KANNIPPAYYOOR.PO., BLOCK OFFICE ROAD,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680517
BY ADVS.
A.PARVATHI MENON
P.SANJAY
BIJU MEENATTOOR
P.K.MURALYKRISHNAN
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
KIRAN NARAYANAN
RAHUL RAJ P.
MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
MEERA R. MENON
DEVIKA S. PRASAD
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 1 AND STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 SOOSANNA.C.V.
AGED 79 YEARS
W/O. BOBY.K.THOMAS,
KUTHOOR HOUSE, KANNIPPAYYOOR.PO.,
BLOCK OFFICE ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680517
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
3
ORDER
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, by the revision petitioners, who are
respondents in CMP No.3672/2024, impugning judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.287/2024 dated 14.10.2024, arose out of
order dated 06.08.2024 in CMP No.3672/2024 in MC
26/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Kunnamkulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners on admission.
3. Perusing the genesis of this case, the 1st
respondent, who is aged 79 years, filed a petition before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, alleging
acts of domestic violence and a petition vide
Crl.M.P.No.3672/2024 also filed, seeking a direction to the
second respondent to remove himself from the shared
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
household shown as the petition schedule property. The
learned Magistrate considered the said plea addressing the
objection raised by the revision petitioners, and finally
granted reliefs as under:
"1. The second respondent is directed to remove
himself from the shared household shown as
petition schedule property in the petition within 15
days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. The Station House Officer, Kunnamkulam Police
Station is directed to provide protection to the
petitioner as and when necessary."
4. Assailing the order, the revision petitioners
herein filed Crl.A.No.287/2024 before the Sessions Court,
Thrissur, and as per judgment dated 14.10.2024, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming
the finding of the trial court.
5. At the time of admission, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that even
though the 2nd respondent obtained decree nullifying the
deed executed in favour of the first revision petitioner, the
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
same has been stayed by the first appellate court. According
to the counsel, now the attempt of the 2 nd respondent is to
exclude the revision petitioners from the shared house.
6. On perusal of the order, it is perceivable
that the 2nd respondent herein/original petitioner/complainant,
an age-old lady of 79, who is none other than the mother of
the first revision petitioner and mother-in-law of the second
revision petitioner, moved an application to remove the
second revision petitioner from the shared household
contending that her right of residence is being interfered by
the second revision petitioner. As an interim arrangement,
having addressed the facts of the case, the learned
Magistrate allowed the same and the first appellate court also
confirmed the same. Going by the description of the status
of the first revision petitioner as a doctor by profession and
the second revision petitioner as her husband, they could
very well avail an abode for themselves and there is no
reason for them to hang on the house where the 79 year old
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
lady has been residing. In fact, orders impugned were
passed against the second revision petitioner alone and no
adverse order passed against the first revision petitioner,
who is the daughter of the second respondent. Viewing from
any angle, the grievance of an age-old lady, who could not
reside at the house, at the age of 79, due to interference of
the 2nd revision petitioner, is well protected by the learned
Magistrate and the same is confirmed by the appellate court
by an interim order and therefore, the same requires no
interference.
Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is
dismissed accordingly.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
2024:KER:82814
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 1206 OF 2024
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.287/2024 BEFORE THE 3RD
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
DATED 14.10.2024
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.8.2024 IN
CRMP 3672/2024 IN MC 26/2021 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL
