Kerala High Court
Jijo.C vs Jasmine Mathew on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:49962
Crl.R.P.No.267/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 267 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2020 IN Crl.A NO.66
OF 2020 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2020 IN MC NO.13 OF 2018 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JIJO.C, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO, VALYARAVEEDU
CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
2 VALSAMMA CHACKO, AGED 62 YEARS
VALYARAVEEDU, CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SMT.C.G.BINDU
SMT.AJITHA C.G.
KUM.K.J.SARANYA RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 JASMINE MATHEW
W/O.JIJO.C, VALYARAVEEDU, CHAMBAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA,
NOW RESIDING AT MEKKADU VEEDU, PULINKUNNU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA-688502.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SMT.BHANU THILAK
SRI.SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49962
ORDER
Respondents in M.C.No.13/2018 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari, have filed this revision petition
challenging the order dated 01.01.2020 of the learned Magistrate
which was upheld by the judgment dated 07.12.2018 of the Sessions
Court, Alappuzha. As per the above verdicts of the courts below, the
aggrieved person in M.C.No.13/2018 was granted reliefs by way of a
protection order, residence order and maintenance as per the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
(for short 'the Act').
2. The revision petitioners herein are the husband and
mother-in-law of the aggrieved person. Alleging that the first
revision petitioner has been subjecting the aggrieved person to
domestic violence and refusing to pay maintenance to her and her
children, the petition was filed under Section 12 of the Act before the
learned Magistrate. It was alleged in the said petition that the
aggrieved person had to take shelter at her parental residence due to
the tortures on the part of the first revision petitioner. In addition to
the reliefs of maintenance and residence, the aggrieved person also
2025:KER:49962
sought the realisation of the value of gold ornaments allegedly
misappropriated by the first revision petitioner and compensation for
the injuries sustained at the hands of the first revision petitioner.
However, the learned Magistrate limited the reliefs to the orders of
protection, residence and maintenance. The revision petitioners were
accordingly restrained from committing, aiding or abetting physical
assault or mental abuse or refusing to provide maintenance or doing
any other acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved person,
and she was permitted to live in the shared household. The first
revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/-
per month to the aggrieved person and Rs.5,000/- each to her two
children.
3. The revision petitioners preferred appeal before the
Sessions Court contending that the learned Magistrate did not afford
opportunity to them to adduce evidence, and that the reliefs granted
to the aggrieved persons were unsustainable. The learned Sessions
Judge analysed the rival contentions, made a re-appreciation of the
evidence and arrived at the finding that there was absolutely no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated
2025:KER:49962
07.12.2020 in Crl.A.No.66/2020. Aggrieved by the above judgment
of the Appellate Court, the revision petitioners are here before this
Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and
the learned counsel for the first respondent/aggrieved person.
5. As already stated above, the main challenge of the
revision petitioners against the order passed by the learned
Magistrate is that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to them to
adduce evidence against the claim of the aggrieved person.
According to the revision petitioners, right from the very beginning of
the case, the learned Magistrate took a vindictive stand against them.
It is further contended that the aggrieved person who occupied the
position as a Director of the automobile business conducted by the
first revision petitioner, had weakened the business by withdrawing
money, and by writing letters to banks and financial institutions to
keep herself away from the future liabilities. Another contention
raised by the revision petitioners is that, the first revision petitioner
lost all his business due to mental as well as financial problems.
6. The contention of the revision petitioners that they were
not afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence, is
2025:KER:49962
factually incorrect, as held by the Appellate Court in the judgment in
appeal. It is seen from the judgment of the Appellate Court that the
relevant portion of the proceedings sheet of the Trial Court from
20.05.2019 to 01.01.2020 has been extracted therein, while deciding
against the contention of the revision petitioners that they were not
given opportunity to adduce evidence. It is apparent from the above
entries in the proceedings sheet of the Trial Court that, the revision
petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, but
their attempt was to procrastinate the proceedings. The revision
petitioners had filed petitions to re-open evidence on three occasions.
The first two petitions filed in that regard were allowed by the Trial
Court, subject to payment of costs. However, the revision petitioners
did not avail the opportunity granted by the Trial Court to adduce any
evidence. Even though the third petition filed by the revision
petitioners for re-opening the evidence was dismissed by the Trial
Court on 30.12.2019, it could be seen from the relevant entry in the
proceedings sheet that it was so dismissed when it was found that
the first revision petitioner, who was present before the court, was
not ready to adduce evidence and his counsel was not ready to
advance arguments. It is true that, on two occasions, the Trial Court
2025:KER:49962
had adjourned the case due to no sitting. So also, on two occasions,
the case happened to be adjourned at the request of the aggrieved
person. But a perusal of the relevant entries in the proceedings
sheet of the Trial Court from 20.05.2019 to 01.01.2020 would reveal
that the revision petitioners were resorting to dilatory tactics by not
caring to adduce evidence despite the trial court acceding to their
request to reopen the evidence on two occasions. Therefore, the
contention of the revision petitioners that the trial court failed to
afford opportunity to them to adduce evidence, is totally baseless.
7. On merits, it is seen that the learned Magistrate and the
learned Sessions Judge have rightly appreciated the facts and
evidence, and arrived at the finding that the reliefs granted to the
aggrieved person were perfectly in order. As rightly observed by the
learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, the first revision
petitioner had not denied his business or income, or raise a
contention that he was not having the means to provide maintenance
to the aggrieved person and her children. On the other hand, it was
contended by the first revision petitioner that he had been paying
maintenance including the educational expenses of the children. The
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly arrived at the finding
2025:KER:49962
that the aggrieved person and her children were entitled for the
reliefs of maintenance and residence, in addition to a protection order
restraining the revision petitioners from resorting to domestic
violence. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the
above regard. Needless to say that the present revision is devoid of
merit.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2025:KER:49962
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 267/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.285/2020 DATED
19/6/2020 OF NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. (OTHERS)
NO.177/2020 DATED 14.7.2023 OF HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT, ALAPPUZHA
