Kerala High Court
Renjith .R vs Renju Pillai on 18 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 299 OF 2023
JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2022 IN Crl.A NO.63 OF 2020 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM /
III ADDL.M.A.C.T./ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY
ORDER DATED 28.05.2020 IN MC NO.78 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, S.PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RENJITH .R
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O RAJASEKHARA KURUPPU, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691302
2 VIJAYAKUMARI.S
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O RAJASEKHARA KURUPPU, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691302
3 RAJASHEKHARA KURUPPU
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU,
KALAKKODU P.O, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT
PIN 691 302
BY ADV SHRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER-STATE:
1 RENJU PILLAI
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O RENJITH R, PARAVILA VEEDU, HARIHARAPURAM P.O,
RESIDING AT CHERUKARA VEEDU, KALAKKODU P.O,
POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302
2025:KER:53679
Crl.R.P No.299/2023
2
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SHRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
SRI SUDHEER G., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53679
Crl.R.P No.299/2023
3
ORDER
The revision petition is filed by the original respondents in MC
No.78/2016 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South
Paravoor. The above MC was filed by the aggrieved person, seeking
various reliefs under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, from her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law.
The learned Magistrate passed an order on 28.05.2020, restraining the
opposite parties from physically and mentally harassing the aggrieved
person and her child. The 1st petitioner herein, who is the 1st respondent
in that MC, was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to his
child and Rs.7000/- to his wife, the aggrieved person. It was further
directed that the 1st petitioner herein shall deposit Rs.50,000/- in the
account of the aggrieved person within 30 days for taking a rented house
and shall deposit rent of Rs.5000/- before the 5th of every month.
2. The above verdict of the learned Magistrate was challenged by
the revision petitioners in appeal before the Additional Sessions Court IV,
Kollam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the judgment dated
12.07.2022 in Crl.Appeal No.63/2020, slightly modified the reliefs granted
2025:KER:53679
4
by the learned Magistrate. The protection order against the 1st petitioner
herein and his parents against harassing the aggrieved person and her
child, was retained as such. So also, the maintenance amount awarded by
the learned Magistrate at the rate of Rs.5000/- to the child and Rs.7000/-
to the aggrieved person (wife of the 1st revision petitioner) was retained as
such by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In addition to the above
reliefs, it was directed that the petitioner herein shall pay monthly rent of
Rs.5000/- to the aggrieved person as directed by the Trial Court. However,
the direction of the Trial Court to deposit Rs.50,000/- for taking a house on
rent, was set aside.
3. Aggrieved by the above directions of the Appellate Court in the
judgment rendered in Crl.Appeal No.63/2020, the petitioners are here
before this Court with this revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend
that the 1st petitioner is employed as a Mechanic in Kuwait, and that he
may not be able to afford payment of a total amount of Rs.17000/- per
month to the aggrieved person in accordance with the directions of the
2025:KER:53679
5
Appellate Court. Thus, it is stated that the direction of the Appellate Court
in the above regard requires modification.
6. It is well settled that the contention regarding the inability of
the husband to make payment to his wife and children for their
maintenance, due to the absence of sufficient income, cannot be raised
unless the amount claimed is so exorbitant that the person to whom the
direction is given may not be able to earn such income. As far as the
present case is concerned, the bare minimum amounts of Rs.5000/- and
Rs.7000/- respectively, are ordered to be paid as maintenance to the child
and wife of the 1st revision petitioner. It is not possible to say that the
aforesaid amount is exorbitant, taking into account the prevailing price
index and cost of living. The child of the 1st respondent is said to be
studying in a CBSE school, and it is of no doubt that a considerable amount
will be required for her to meet the child's educational expenses. That
apart, for meeting expenses of food and nourishment also, the amount of
Rs.5000/- awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court cannot be
said to be excessive. Likewise, the amount of Rs.7000/- ordered to be paid
as maintenance to the aggrieved person is also perfectly reasonable. As
regards the amount of Rs.5000/- ordered to be paid for accommodation to
2025:KER:53679
6
the aggrieved person and her child, the Trial Court and Appellate Court
cannot be found at fault. It is the duty of the 1st revision petitioner to
ensure that his wife and child are provided with suitable accommodation to
take shelter.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that
the wife of the 1st petitioner is a graduate and hence she would be able to
fetch an income for herself. No such flimsy contentions could be raised to
refuse maintenance to the wife and child of a person, since being a
graduate does not mean that she would be able to earn income by availing
a job.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as
revealed from the records, as well as the discussions in the judgment of the
Appellate Court, and order of the Trial Court, I am of the view that there is
absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Court in
the impugned judgment. Needless to say that the revision can only fail.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
