Kerala High Court
Dr.P.R.Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2025
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 234 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2024 IN Crl.A NO.175 OF 2024
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2023 IN MC NO.20 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT & RESPONDENT:
DR.P.R.RAJAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, 'NANDANAM',
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
BY ADVS. SHRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 DR.BEENA
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O.P.R.RAJAN, 'NANDANAM',
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
3 GOWRI
AGED 22 YEARS
D/O.P.R.RAJAN, 'NANDANAM',
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
4 KRISHNAPRIYA
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O.P.R.RAJAN, 'NANDANAM',
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
-:2:-
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN.H.- FOR R2, R3, R4
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SHRI.AMAL DEV D
SMT.SNEHA M.S.
SHRI.ABHIJITH E.R.
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.313/2025, THE COURT ON 10.06.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 313 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2024 IN Crl.A NO.174 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 18.04.2024 IN MC NO.20 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT:
DR.P.R.RAJAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAMOORTHI, 'NANDANAM',
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
BY ADVS. SHRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 DR.BEENA
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O.P.R.RAJAN, 'NANDANAM',
EMRA JUNCTION, MANKAVU P.O.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673007
BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN.H.- FOR R2
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SMT.E.SILPA
SHRI.AMAL DEV D
SHRI.ABHIJITH E.R.
SMT.SNEHA M.S.
SRI G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.234/2025, THE COURT ON 10.06.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
-:4:-
COMMON ORDER
The common judgment rendered by the IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Kozhikode, in Crl.A.Nos.174 & 175/2024 is under challenge in
these revisions. The appellant in the above appeals was the petitioner in
M.C.No.20/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Kozhikode, a case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (in short, 'PWDV Act').
Before the learned Magistrate, the aggrieved person filed
C.M.P.No.1081/2023 under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act, seeking
various interim reliefs of protection order, residence order, maintenance
order etc. C.M.P.No.3955/2023 was filed by the aggrieved person before
the learned Magistrate for getting back her original title deeds of
property from the respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed both the
petitions stating the reason that the petitioner had suppressed material
facts before the court, and hence the affidavit filed by her did not inspire
confidence of the court to hold that a prima facie case of domestic
violence is established. The Appellate Court found fault with the learned
Magistrate for arriving at the conclusion that there was no prima facie
evidence of domestic violence, before the commencement of evidence in
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
the said case. The Appellate Court observed in the impugned common
judgment that if there was no prima facie evidence of domestic violence,
the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved person under the
PWDV Act, and hence the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the
original petition itself as not maintainable. With the above observation,
the Appellate Court remanded back C.M.P.Nos.1081/2023 & 3955/2023
to the learned Magistrate with the direction to have fresh disposal.
Aggrieved by the above common judgment of the remand of the
Appellate Court, the respondent in M.C. has filed these revision petitions.
2. The first petitioner before the learned Magistrate is a Dentist
by profession. The respondent, her husband, is an Anesthetist. The
petitioners 2 & 3 are the children born in their wedlock, who have now
attained the age of majority. The first petitioner, admittedly, had been
afflicted with cancer, and was undergoing treatment for the same. In
addition to the allegations of physical and mental harassment, the first
petitioner would contend that the respondent did not care to meet the
expenses of her treatment or to provide financial assistance. It is on the
basis of the aforesaid contentions that she approached the learned
Magistrate with the petition under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. She also
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
sought various interim reliefs as per the CMPs referred above. Relying on
the records produced by the respondent, the learned Magistrate found
that he had made payments for the treatment of the first petitioner, and
also for the educational expenses of the petitioners 2 & 3. The learned
Magistrate further observed that the first petitioner had suppressed the
fact that she had commenced the functioning of a dental clinic in the
year 2022, where she, along with seven other Doctors, have been
working. The learned Magistrate also found fault with the first petitioner
for not producing the account statements along with assets and liability
affidavit to show that she was not having sufficient means to maintain
herself. It is for the above reason that the learned Magistrate came to
the conclusion that the first petitioner has resorted to suppression of
material facts, and hence she was disqualified to seek the interim reliefs
prayed for in the aforesaid C.M.Ps.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein.
4. The Appellate Court has not at all dealt with in its judgment
about the reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate for arriving at the
conclusion that there was suppression of material facts on the part of the
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
first petitioner. Nothing has been stated in the impugned common
judgment of the Appellate Court as to whether the learned Magistrate
had gone wrong in arriving at the aforesaid finding on the basis of the
records produced by the respondent. Instead, what has been stated in
the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is that the learned
Magistrate was not right in arriving at the finding that there is no prima
facie case for the petitioner without taking evidence in that case. The
fact that the learned Magistrate had made the above observations solely
for the purpose of deciding the interim applications filed by the
petitioner, was lost sight of by the Appellate Court. As rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court
seems to have made the observations in the impugned judgment, as if
the learned magistrate had disposed of the original petition itself.
5. As far as the interim orders passed under Section 23 of the
PWDV Act are concerned, the decisions rendered by the learned
Magistrate declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, cannot be
found to be wrong. The first petitioner has not offered any plausible
explanation as to why she did not reveal that she had commenced a
dental clinic in her own name in the year 2022, and that she along with
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
seven other Doctors have been working in that hospital. So also, she has
no answer to the documents which the respondent had produced before
the learned Magistrate showing that he had expended amount for her
treatment, and also for the payment of educational expenses of the
petitioners 2 & 3. Furthermore, the first petitioner has not explained the
reason why she could not produce the statement of accounts for the past
three years with the assets and liability affidavit. In that view of the
matter, the learned Magistrate cannot be found to be at fault with for
declining the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the aforesaid CMPs.
However, while disposing of the main petition, the learned Magistrate has
to appreciate the evidence adduced from both sides and arrive at the
finding untrammeled and uninhibited by her previous findings in the
orders passed in the interim applications. Therefore, the remand to the
case of the Trial Court is well and good, but the observations made by
the Appellate Court in the common judgment rendered by it in appeal,
cannot be accepted. Therefore the impugned common judgment
rendered by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside, though the case
has to be remanded back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding
further with the evidence in the main petition.
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed as follows:
(i) The impugned common judgment rendered by the Appellate
Court stands set aside.
(ii)The remand of the case to the Trial Court is upheld.
(iii)The order passed by the learned Magistrate in
C.M.P.Nos.1081/2023 & 3955/2023 are upheld.
(iv)The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the main petition filed
in the M.C., untrammeled and uninhibited by her observations in
the orders passed in the aforesaid CMPs.
Sd/- (Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 234/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION M.C.NO.20/2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
BEFORE THE J.F.CM. COURT-III, KOZHIKODE DATED
15.05.2023
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.1081/2023 DATED
15.05.2023
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.3955/2023 DATED
11.12.2023
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CMP
1081/2023 IN MC 20/2023 DATED 16.05.2023 OF THE
J.F.C.M.COURT-III, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SBI ACCOUNT STATEMENT
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE
J.F.C.M-III, KOZHIKODE IN C.M.P.NO.1081/2023
DATED 16.04.2024
ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.APPEAL NO.175/2024
DATED 14.05.2024
ANNEXURE A8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, KOZHIKODE IN CRL.APPL.NO.175/2024 WHICH
IS A COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRL APPL NO. 174/2024
AND CRL APPL NO. 175/2024 DATED 26.11.2024
2025:KER:39972
Crl.R.P.Nos.234 & 313/2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 313/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION M.C.NO.20/2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
BEFORE THE J.F.CM. COURT-III, KOZHIKODE DATED
15.05.2023
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.3955/2023 DATED
11.12.2023
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE
J.F.C.M-III, KOZHIKODE IN C.M.P.NO.3955/2023
DATED 18.04.2024
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.APPEAL NO.174/2024
DATED 14.05.2024
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, KOZHIKODE IN CRL.APPL.NO.174/2024 WHICH
IS A COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRL APPL NO. 175/2024
AND CRL APPL NO. 174/2024 DATED 26.11.2024
