Kerala High Court
Kuruvilla Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2025
2025:KER:72398
Crl.R.P.No.560/2023
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 560 OF 2023
CRIME NO.0/0 OF , Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2023 IN Crl.APPEAL NO.30 OF
2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2019 IN MC NO.12 OF
2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.III, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
KURUVILLA THOMAS,
S/O. M.K. THOMAS,
AGED 54 YEARS,
MATTATHIL(H),
MALAM, MANARCAD,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686019
BY ADVS.SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SHRI.BRISTO S PARIYARAM
SHRI.AJAI ALIAS CHALAPPURAM
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA & PETITIONER:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 SINI ZACHARIAH,
W/O. KURUVILA THOMAS,
AGED 50 YEARS
MATTATHIL(H) , MALAM,
MANARCAD, KOTTAYAM,
PIN-686019
2025:KER:72398
Crl.R.P.No.560/2023
-:2:-
BY ADVS.SRI. SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SHRI.LUKE J CHIRAYIL FOR R2
SHRI.AMAL JOSE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.09.2025, THE COURT ON 29.09.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72398
Crl.R.P.No.560/2023
-:3:-
ORDER
The judgment dated 31.01.2023 of the Additional Sessions Court-V,
Kottayam, in Crl.A.No.30/2020, and the order dated 27.12.2019 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam, in M.C.No.12/2017 are
under challenge in this revision filed at the instance of the appellant in
the aforesaid Crl.Appeal.
2. M.C.No.12/2017 was instituted by the second respondent
herein against the revision petitioner seeking various reliefs under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
As per the impugned order dated 27.12.2019, the learned Magistrate
directed the revision petitioner herein to secure the same level of
alternate accommodation to his wife as enjoyed by her in the shared
household and to pay rent for the same. All the other reliefs prayed for
by the petitioner in that M.C. were disallowed. In the appeal, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge made a modification to the aforesaid order by
declaring that the revision petitioner's wife is entitled to reside in the
shared household along with her daughter, and further directed that if
she is not willing for the same, she shall be granted an amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month by the revision petitioner for her alternative
accommodation. The verdicts of the learned Magistrate and the learned
2025:KER:72398
Additional Sessions Judge in the above regard are under challenge in 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.
4. A reading of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on
27.12.2019 would reveal that the allegation of the second respondent
herein about the domestic violence perpetrated upon her by the revision
petitioner by way of physical and mental torture were found against her.
However, it was observed by the learned Magistrate in paragraph No.11
of the impugned order that the act of the revision petitioner herein
ousting the second respondent from the shared household would amount
to domestic violence. It is upon the above premises that the learned
Magistrate passed the residence order directing the revision petitioner to
secure alternate accommodation to his wife. The findings of the learned
Magistrate in the impugned order are not interfered with by the Appellate
Court. Except for a clarification that the revision petitioner has to pay an
amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife for her alternate
accommodation, if she is not amenable to stay at the shared household,
2025:KER:72398
the Appellate Court did not make any modification to the order passed by
the learned Magistrate.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that
the revision petitioner is not having any objection in accommodating the
second respondent in the shared household, and that the directions of
the courts below to provide alternate accommodation is totally
unwarranted, since there are the clear findings of the Trial Court and
Appellate Court that the aggrieved person could not adduce any
evidence showing physical or mental violence perpetrated upon her by
the revision petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner that the direction to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to
the second respondent for alternate accommodation is not legally
sustainable in the absence of proof of acts of domestic violence on the
part of the revision petitioner.
6. As already stated above, the only instance of domestic
violence found by the Trial Court was the alleged act of the revision
petitioner ousting his wife from the shared household. Now that the
revision petitioner would contend that he is ready to wholeheartedly
accommodate the second respondent in the shared household. Since
neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has found that the revision
2025:KER:72398
petitioner had resorted to any act of physical or mental violence upon the
second respondent, she cannot decline the above offer of the revision
petitioner to reside in the shared household.
7. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of this
case, I am of the view that this revision has to be disposed of with a
direction to the revision petitioner to accommodate the second
respondent in the shared household and to refrain from committing any
acts which would directly or indirectly result in her expulsion from that
residence.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:-
(i) The revision petitioner is directed to accommodate the
second respondent in the shared household and to provide a
conducive atmosphere for her to live peacefully in the
aforesaid house.
(ii) The revision petitioner shall refrain from committing any acts
which would directly or indirectly result in the expulsion of
the second respondent from the shared household.
(iii)The impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is superseded
as above.
(Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
