Kerala High Court
Thomas Kurian vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025
2025:KER:67028
Crl.RP No.596/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 596 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2024 IN Crl.A NO.38 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII,
ERNAKULAM / IV ADDITIONAL MACT ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
THOMAS KURIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O KURIAN,
KOCHUPURAKKAL MARIA BHAVAN, ERUVELI P.O.,
CHOTTANIKKARA, FROM KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE,
KALLOOPPARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN -
682312
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 LT. COL. ALICE MATHEW (RTD.), AGED 62 YEARS
KOCHUPURAKKAL MARIA BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERUVELI
P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
SHRI.JINU P. BINU
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2025, THE COURT ON 11.09.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67028
Crl.RP No.596/2025 2
ORDER
The judgment dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.A.No. 38/2024 on the files
of Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam, is under challenge in this
revision petition filed by the first respondent in that appeal.
2. The matter relates to the issues which arose between a
husband and wife, at the dusk of their life, leading to the filing of a
complaint of domestic violence by the wife, a retired Lt.Col. of the
Indian Army. In the complaint, which was registered before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara as M.C No.3/2023, the wife
sought the relief of protection and residence alleging that her husband
has been subjecting her to severe physical and mental cruelty, making
it impossible for her to reside along with him in the house constructed
in the landed property belonging to her at Chottanikkara. The learned
Magistrate proceeded with the trial, in which the aggrieved person and
her daughter were examined as PW1 and PW2, and the title deed of
the property, where she is residing, was marked as Ext.P1. The
husband and one witness were examined as DW1 and DW2, and a
medical certificate showing 42% disability of the husband, was marked
2025:KER:67028
as Ext.D1. The learned Magistrate, after evaluation of the aforesaid
evidence, found that the aggrieved person is entitled for a protection
order restraining her husband from committing physical or mental
violence upon her. The prayer of the aggrieved person for a direction
to her husband to remove himself from the house where she is
residing, was disallowed by the Trial Court. The wife, thus, preferred
the appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, aggrieved by the
refusal of the learned Magistrate to pass the necessary orders to evict
her husband from the house where she was residing. It is the
aforesaid appeal, which was decided by the Additional Sessions
Judge-VIII, granting the relief of residence prayed for by the aggrieved
person by directing her husband to remove himself from the house at
Chottanikkara, where she has been residing. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid verdict of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the
petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:67028
4. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the finding of the
learned Magistrate about the commission of domestic violence by the
revision petitioner, still remains in force. So also, the order of the
learned Magistrate restraining the revision petitioner from committing
physical or mental violence upon the second respondent, has not been
set aside, altered or modified in any proceedings challenging the same.
It is, in fact, taking note of the above aspect that the Appellate Court
found fault with the learned Magistrate for not granting the relief of
exclusive residence to the second respondent. The reasoning of the
learned Magistrate for disallowing the prayer of the second respondent
for a direction to the revision petitioner to remove himself from the
house where the second respondent is residing, was that the revision
petitioner is an age old person having 42% disability with no one to
take care of him. However, in the same order, the learned Magistrate
had arrived at the finding that the second respondent was being
subjected to severe physical and mental torture by the revision
petitioner. There is also extensive reference in the impugned order of
the learned Magistrate about the evidence tendered by the daughter of
the second respondent pointing to the treacherous act of the revision
2025:KER:67028
petitioner, who had been subjecting her to sexual exploitation right
from her childhood. It is with such a person that the second
respondent was compelled to share her residence for the reason that a
medical certificate produced by the revision petitioner showed 42%
disability to him. By delving in detail about the social objective sought
to be accomplished by enacting the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed
in the impugned judgment that the Trial Court went wrong in
disallowing the residence order to the aggrieved person, after coming
to the finding that she was being subjected to severe physical and
mental violence by the revision petitioner. There is absolutely no
illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Court.
It is pertinent to note that the Appellate Court has observed in the
impugned judgment about the offer which the second respondent had
made to arrange a home nurse to look after the revision petitioner
while he was residing at the house at Nilambur. However, the revision
petitioner is said to have disposed of his property at Nilambur and
occupied a portion of the house where the second respondent was
residing at Chottanikkara, and continued subjecting the second
2025:KER:67028
respondent to physical and mental torture. In such a situation, there is
absolutely no justification in compelling the aggrieved person to
continue to suffer domestic violence from her husband, by permitting
him to reside along with her. The protection order granted by the
learned Magistrate would, in effect, be rendered nugatory by the
permission accorded to the revision petitioner to reside in the same
house where the second respondent has been residing. Therefore, the
Appellate Court has rightly granted the relief by directing the revision
petitioner to remove himself from the shared household at
Chottanikkara. Needless to say, the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate
Court is not liable to be interfered with in this revision.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
