Kerala High Court
Hyder vs Kunhayisha on 3 September, 2024
2024:KER:67778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2022 IN CRA NO.36 OF
2021 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2020 IN MC NO.16 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
HYDER
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KUNHIMOIDEEN,
RESIDING AT PARAKKADAVATH HOUSE,
VADAKKANGARA VILLAGE, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676507
BY ADV M.A.JINSA MOL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE:
1 KUNHAYISHA
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIYAR,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKULAMBA,
KURUVA, VATTALOOR, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676507
2 IYATHU HIBA
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O HYDER, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE,
CHERUKULAMBA, KURUVA, VATTALOOR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 676507
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
2
3 AMEEN KHAN
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O HYDER,
RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKULAMBA,
KURUVA, VATTALOOR,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676507
4 SANIYA
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O HYDER,RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE,
CHERUKULAMBA, KURUVA, VATTALOOR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 676507
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV C.DINESH
SRI. M P PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
3
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, challenging judgment dated 27.06.2022 in
Criminal Appeal No.36/2021 on the files of the Sessions
Court, Manjeri, arising out of order dated 28.05.2020 in
M.C.No.16/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Perinthalmanna.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, who is the respondent in MC No.16/2018 and the
appellant in Crl.A.No.36/2021 as well as the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 4, who are petitioners in the
above MC. Perused the verdicts impugned.
3. I shall refer the parties in this Criminal
Revision Petition with reference to their status before the trial
court for convenience.
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
4. In this matter, the first petitioner, who is the
wife of the respondent, and other petitioners, who are
children born to them, have approached the learned
Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act' for
short), alleging act of domestic violence on the part of the
respondent. Accordingly, residence order, return of gold
ornaments, compensation order, protection order,
maintenance order etc. were asked for, mainly contending
that the petitioners have no means of sustenance and no
dwelling house of their own.
5. The respondent appeared and filed
objection disputing the contentions.
6. The learned Magistrate ventured the matter
and recorded the evidence of the 1st petitioner as PW1, in a
case where the respondent did not adduce any evidence.
Finally, it was found by the trial court that the respondent
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
subjected the aggrieved persons to the act of domestic
violence and therefore, they are entitled to get reliefs (i) to
(iii). The said reliefs were granted while disallowing the
prayer for return of money and gold ornaments. The reliefs
granted by the trial court as (i) to (iii) are extracted as under:
(I) The respondent is hereby prohibited by
means of a protection order from
subjecting the petitioners to physical or
mental cruelty or causing any manner
annoyances to them.
(ii) The aggrieved person/1st petitioner is
hereby permitted to rent out a house of
her choice and the respondent 1is
directed by means of a residence order
to pay rent of the house subject to
maximum of Rs. 5,000/- per month on
producing rent paid receipt.
(iii) The respondent is hereby (iv) (v)
directed to pay maintenance @ of
Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner Nos.
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
1, 3, and 4. 1st petitioner is authorized to
receive maintenance amount on behalf
of the other petitioners.
7. Although Crl.A.No.36/2021 preferred
before the Sessions Court challenging the order of the trial
court, the same also was dismissed, confirming the order
of the learned Magistrate.
8. As on 26.07.2024, when this Court
considered admission of this matter, an interim order
passed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only),
within a period of four weeks, on noticing the fact that
Rs.7,65,000/- (Rupees seven lakh sixty five thousand
only) is outstanding under the said account. But no
amount paid. In the order of the learned Magistrate also,
reluctance on the part of the respondent to pay interim
maintenance was noted and thereby, order on merits
passed subsequently. Here, the case of the petitioners is
that they do not have means of sustenance and also any
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
residence. Even though the respondent filed objection
disputing the said contention, PW1, the 1 st petitioner, alone
given evidence, supporting the same and taking note of
the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
Magistrate granted a megre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
the rental allowance for arranging a residence for the
petitioners. Similarly, the learned Magistrate ordered to
pay Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioners 1, 3 and 4, with
permission to the first petitioner to receive the same. That
apart, prohibitory order of protection also was passed.
9. While considering the reliefs, the learned
Magistrate given reliance on the evidence of PW1, taking
note of the fact that the petitioner married another lady and
living with her. The learned magistrate also noted assault
at the instance of the respondent, hospitalization of PW1
and registration of crime No.107/2018 by the Police in this
regard. According to the petitioners, the respondent has
2024:KER:67778
CRL.REV.PET NO. 733 OF 2024
been earning Rs.75,000/- per month as income as a gulf
returnee doing real estate business. In fact, the evidence
of PW1 not challenged by cross examining her and
accordingly, the trial court granted the reliefs and the same
are rightly confirmed by the appellate court also. When
the amounts granted by the learned Magistrate and
confirmed by the appellate court are gone through, the
same are reasonable in the facts of the case. Therefore, I
am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, this revision petition found to be
meritless and is dismissed accordingly.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order
to the trial court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
