Kerala High Court
Krishnadas vs Sreelatha on 2 July, 2025
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1002 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.88 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
- IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2019 IN MC NO.3 OF 2017
OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
KRISHNADAS
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE BALAN, AARAPPATH HOUSE, DEVI NAGAR,
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 SREELATHA
D/O. KUNJAN, ARANIPADATH VEEDU, AZHIYANNUR P.O,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1013/2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1013 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN Crl.A
NO.44 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT
- IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2019 IN MC NO.3 OF 2017
OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
KRISHNADAS
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE BALAN, AARAPPATH HOUSE, DEVI NAGAR,
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 SREELATHA
D/O. KUNJAN, ARANIPADATH VEEDU, AZHIYANNUR P.O,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
4
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.KEERTHI M.
SHRI.ARJUN RAJA P.C.
SRI.N.RAGESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1002/2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
5
JUDGMENT
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1002/2024, 1013/2024]
Both these revision petitions arose out of the common
judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad, in
Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 and Crl.Appeal No.88/2019. The issue relates
to the reliefs granted to the aggrieved person in M.C.No.3/2017 on
the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Sreekrishnapuram. The revision
petitioner herein is the husband of the aggrieved person. The
aggrieved person approached the Grama Nyayalaya seeking various
reliefs of protection, maintenance and other monetary remedies
under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
2. The learned Nyayadhikari, after evaluating the
evidence adduced through the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2, and
Exts.P1 to P3 from the part of the aggrieved person, and oral
testimonies of DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 from the part of the revision
petitioner herein, passed the order dated 23.01.2019, restraining the
revision petitioner and his mother, from committing domestic
violence upon the aggrieved person, and granting maintenance at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of order, to the aggrieved
person.
3. Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 was filed by the revision
petitioner herein against the aforesaid order of the learned
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
Nyayadhikari. Crl.Appeal No.88/2019 was preferred by the aggrieved
person, complaining that the learned Nyayadhikari erred in
disallowing her claim for maintenance from the date of petition, and
also by declining compensation to her. After considering both the
above appeals, and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palakkad, rendered the impugned
common judgment dated 11.06.2024, modifying the reliefs granted
by the learned Nyayadhikari.
4. Dismissing Crl.Appeal No.44/2019, and allowing
Crl.Appeal No.88/2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the aggrieved
person, and directed that the payment of maintenance at the rate of
Rs.8,000/- ordered by the learned Nyayadhikari, shall take effect from
the date of petition onwards. It is the aforesaid common judgment,
which is under challenge in this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
6. As already stated above, the learned Nyayadhikari
passed the impugned order, after evaluating the evidence of the
aggrieved person and one witness as PW1 and PW2, and three
documents marked from her part as Exts.P1 to P3. The evidence of
the revision petitioner herein through his oral testimony as DW1, and
the testimony of another witness as DW2 and document marked as
Ext.D1 were also appreciated by the learned Nyayadhikari. It is seen
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
from the order passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, that after
analysing the aforesaid evidence, she came to a conclusion that the
domestic violence alleged by the aggrieved person, has been
established. Evidence in the above regard has been re-appreciated by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the above
finding of the learned Nyayadhikari.
7. As regards the claim of maintenance, the objection
raised by the revision petitioner herein was that the aggrieved person
has failed to establish his income. There was also a contention that
the aggrieved person has been earning income from tuition classes
and other sources. All those aspects have been rightly discussed by
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, and it has been held
that the revision petitioner cannot evade from his responsibility to
make payment of maintenance to the aggrieved person.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner that the aggrieved person is having sufficient
source of income to maintain herself, has been found against by the
court below, after evaluating the evidence. I find no reason to
interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below. It
is seen from the common judgment rendered by the Additional
Sessions Judge that the finding regarding the entitlement of
aggrieved person for compensation, has been arrived at, on the basis
of sustainable reasons. The modification made by the Appellate Court
in the above regard, cannot be interfered with in this revision
2025:KER:48137
Crl.Rev.Petition Nos.1002 and 1013 of 2024
proceedings, since there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in
the above findings. Likewise, the observation of the Appellate Court
that there was no justification for the direction in the order of the
learned Nyayadhikari, fixing the liability of the revision petitioner to
pay maintenance with effect from the date of order, and declining to
grant maintenance from the date of petition, is also well founded. It is
the normal rule that the aggrieved persons, who claims maintenance
from the opposite party are to be awarded maintenance amount with
effect from the date of petition, unless there are convincing reasons
to disallow the above claim, and restrict the maintenance with effect
from the date of order.
9. As far as the present case is concerned, the
learned Nyayadhikari has not stated any reason for disallowing
maintenance with effect from the date of petition. Therefore, the
modification made by the appellate court in the above regard, is also
in consonance with the principles of law. As a conclusion to the above
discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned common
judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad, in
Crl.Appeal No.44/2019 and Crl.Appeal No.88/2019.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
sd/
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
