Kerala High Court
Soumya vs Abhilash.T.B on 19 August, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 18 OF 2025
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2024 IN Crl.A NO.379 OF
2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II,
NORTH PARAVUR, NORTH PARAVUR
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2022 IN MC NO.15 OF 2014
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOUMYA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O ABHILASH, THEKKUMPARAMBIL,
ERUMATHALA. P.O, KEEZHMADU,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT AKKAPPARA HOUSE,
VAZHAKKALA SOUTH, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682021
BY ADV SMT.M.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE:
1 ABHILASH.T.B
S/O LATE BALAKRISHNAN,
THEKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ERUMATHALA P.O., KEEZHMADU,
ALUVA, PIN - 683112
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.K.V.SABU FOR R1
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON 19.08.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61650
Crl.R.P No.18/2025
2
ORDER
Dissatisfied with the reliefs granted by Judicial First Class
Magistrate I, Aluva and Additional Sessions Judge II, North Paravur in
a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, the aggrieved person is before this Court with
this revision.
2. In the complaint preferred before the learned Magistrate,
the revision petitioner alleged physical, mental, emotional and
economic violence against her husband and in-laws, who were
arraigned as respondents 1 to 3 respectively in M.C No.15/2014. After
the completion of the trial, with the examination of six witnesses as
PW1 to PW6 and admission of five documents as Exhibits P1 to P4
and X1 from the part of the aggrieved person, and two witnesses and
admission of two documents as D1 and D2 from the part of the
respondents, the learned Magistrate allowed the prayers restraining
the respondents from committing domestic violence. and also
directing maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to the child of the
petitioner. In addition to that, the 1st respondent was directed to
2025:KER:61650
3
return the amount of Rs.1 lakh which he received from the petitioner,
and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the physical and
mental sufferings inflicted upon her. However, the claim of the
aggrieved person for realisation of value of 16½ sovereigns of gold
and the household utensils, which she allegedly entrusted with the
respondents, was disallowed. Aggrieved by the above order of the
learned Magistrate, she approached the Additional Sessions Court,
North Paravur with Crl.Appeal No.379/2022. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, after a reappraisal of the evidence, modified the
reliefs granted by the learned Magistrate by enhancing the
maintenance amount to Rs.4000/- per month, and setting aside the
compensation of Rs.50,000/- ordered to be paid by the 1st respondent.
The other reliefs of prohibitory order against committing domestic
violence and the direction to return the amount of Rs.1 lakh, were
retained.
3. According to the petitioner, the courts below went wrong
in refusing her the relief towards realisation of the value of 16½
sovereigns of gold and the household utensils, which were obtained
by the respondents from her at the time of marriage. The revision
2025:KER:61650
4
petitioner is further aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge excluding the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which the
learned Magistrate had awarded.
4. Though notice was duly served on the 1st respondent, he
did not choose to appear or contest the proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The revision petitioner had filed Crl.M.A No.3/2025 for
receiving two documents as Annexure 1 and Annexure 2. The above
application has been allowed and the said documents were placed on
record in this revision proceedings.
7. As already stated above, the main grievance of the
revision petitioner is that the courts below declined to grant the relief
towards the realisation of the value of 16 ½ sovereigns of gold which
the respondents allegedly obtained from her at the time of her
marriage with the 1st respondent. The reasoning of the learned
Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge for not
allowing the said relief was that the petitioner did not establish in her
evidence that she had not taken back the above gold ornaments with
2025:KER:61650
5
her at the time when she left the residence of the respondents. It is
towards showing that the above reasoning adopted by the courts
below was wrong, that the petitioner has produced Annexure 1 and
Annexure 2 documents in this revision proceedings. Annexure 1 is the
copy of the deposition of the petitioner before the Family Court,
Ernakulam, in O.P No.1042/2014 filed by her. Annexure 2 are the
copies of the receipts issued by a jewellery shop in Ernakulam in
respect of the sale of gold ornaments. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that the aforesaid documents would
establish that the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner were not
taken back by her when she left the residence of the respondents.
8. It is true that Annexure 1 deposition of the petitioner
contains a statement that when she returned to her residence on
25.03.2012, she was having the gold chain with nuptial knot given by
the 1st respondent, and two other bangles. It is not possible to
discern from Annexure 1 as to the weight and worth of the above two
gold bangles, which she is said to have retained with her when she
left the residence of the respondents. Thus, even if the statement
given by the petitioner before the Family Court with regard to the gold
2025:KER:61650
6
ornaments belonging to her is accepted as such, ignoring the serious
challenge raised by the respondents in cross examination pointing out
that all those gold ornaments were taken back by her, still it is not
possible to ascertain what exactly is the quantity of gold ornaments,
which the petitioner is entitled to get back from the respondents.
That could be ascertained if only the weight and worth of the gold
bangles which the petitioner took back, are revealed, which the
petitioner has not done so far. It is true that Annexure 2, copy of
estimate issued by a private jeweller, contains the indication that two
bangles worth 36.100 gms were sold to the purchaser on 20.09.2010.
However, it is not possible to conclude on the basis of Annexure 2 that
the indication in the above regard related to the gold bangles which
the petitioner took back when she left the residence of the
respondents. It is to be noted that the relevant receipt in Annexure 2
of the date 20.09.2010, wherein there is reference about two bangles,
does not contain any indication to show that the items mentioned
thereunder were sold to the petitioner herein or her parents. Thus,
the courts below cannot be found to be at fault for declining to grant
2025:KER:61650
7
the relief towards realisation of the value of gold ornaments claimed
by the petitioner.
9. As regards the claim of value of household utensils like
refrigerator, almirah etc, the courts below have rightly held that the
petitioner failed to specify the value of those items and to adduce
substantial evidence to establish her claim in the above regard. Thus,
the challenge raised by the petitioner against the decision of the
learned Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge declining to
grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as value of household items, is devoid
of merit.
10. As regards the modification made by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dropping the compensation of Rs.50,000/-
which the learned Magistrate had awarded for the mental pain and
sufferings of the aggrieved person, it has to be stated that the
decision in the above regard was without proper reasoning. In
paragraph No.27 of the common judgment rendered by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.365/2022 and 379/2022, it
has been observed that the allegations of mental and physical abuse
against the petitioner have been proven, and it is also established that
2025:KER:61650
the petitioner resided in the shared household for a total period of six
months. The learned Sessions Judge went on to observe in the
aforesaid paragraph that the mere proof that the petitioner sustained
violence at the hands of the respondent, is insufficient to justify an
award of compensation or damages for the injuries without evidence
of specific damage, including mental torture or emotional distress by
the acts of domestic violence. The observation of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in the above regard is totally unfounded,
since it is very difficult for a lady like the petitioner herein, who
suffered mental and physical torture at the hands of her husband, to
bring forth evidence showing the actual impact of the above physical
and mental torture inflicted upon her. Strict proof of the extent of
damages resulted due to the violence perpetrated by the opposite
party is not possible in such cases. The token amount of
compensation which the learned Magistrate fixed as Rs.50,000/- for
the physical and mental sufferings undergone by the petitioner, is
perfectly in order. Thus the decision of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, divesting of the above compensation awarded by the learned
Magistrate, is liable to be interfered with in this revision.
2025:KER:61650
9
11. As a conclusion to the above discussion, I find that the
reliefs granted by the Additional Sessions Judge II, North Paravur, in
the common judgment rendered in Crl.Appeal No.365/2022 and
379/2022 are liable to be upheld with the addition of the relief of
compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which the learned Magistrate awarded
in the order dated 03.10.2022 in M.C No.15/2014.
In the result, the revision stands allowed as follows:
In addition to the reliefs granted by the Additional Sessions
Judge II, North Paravur, in the common judgment rendered in
Crl.Appeal No.365/2022 and 379/2022, the petitioner is permitted to
realise the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, which the Judicial
First Class Magistrate I, Aluva, granted in the order dated 03.10.2022
in MC No.15/2014.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
2025:KER:61650
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE
PETITIONER IN O.P. 1042 OF 2014 BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN THE DIVORCE CASE
ANNEXURE-2 THE BILLS OF PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS
INCLUDING THE EXCHANGED ITEMS
