[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rohini vs Seena.V on 3 February, 2026
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1614 OF 2018
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2018 IN Crl.A NO.160 OF
2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2015 IN MC NO.116 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS IN C.A:
1 ROHINI, AGED 61 YEARS
W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KAVILATHU HOUSE, VENMANY EAST MURI,
CHENGANNUR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.
2 RANI, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.BIJU, MANI BHAVAN, CHERUKOLE P.O., KARAZHMA,
MAVELIKKARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.
3 RAJI, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MADHU, KAVILATHU VEEDU, VANMANY EAST MURI,
CHENGANNRU, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.N.N.SASI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SEENA.V.,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.LATE PREMKUMAR, SINDHU BHAVAN, PALLICKAL EAST MURI,
THEKKEKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT-
690107.
2 BIJU,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.VISWANATHAN, MANI BHAVAN, CHERUKOLE P.O., KARAZHMA,
MAVELIKKARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT- 690104.
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 2
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-
682031.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R1
SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
SMT.REENA THOMAS
SMT.NIGI GEORGE
SRI.P.V.CHERIAN
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 03.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 3
ORDER
The reliefs granted to an aggrieved person in a petition filed under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are under challenge in
this revision at the instance of the respondents 2 to 5 in the proceedings
before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred hereinafter in their capacities as the petitioner and the
respondents respectively, as they figured in the proceedings before the
Trial Court in M.C.No.116/2011.
2. The petitioner is the wife of late Premkumar who was the
son of late N.Raveendran, arraigned as the first respondent, and Rohini,
the second respondent. The first respondent in the M.C passed away
during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court.
Respondents 3 and 5 in the M.C were the sisters of the deceased
husband of the petitioner. The 4th respondent is the husband of the 3rd
respondent.
3. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate seeking
the reliefs of protection order, residence order and compensation from
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 4
the respondents 2 to 5. She contended that the respondents had
obtained a total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from her at the time of the
marriage with late Premkumar on 11.05.2010. It was further contended
that 17.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments which belonged to the petitioner
were also appropriated by the respondents for the construction of a
residential building. In addition to that, the respondents were also
alleged to have taken away the household articles worth Rs.45,000/-
which belonged to the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are said to
have executed settlement deed No.1881/2011 of Cheriyanad Sub
Registry in respect of a newly constructed house and the land
appurtenant thereto, in favour of the husband of the petitioner on
20.09.2011 in acknowledgement of the fact that the gold ornaments and
money which belonged to the petitioner, were utilised for the
construction of the house situated in the land which was settled by
virtue of the above document. Thereafter, on 03.10.2011, the
petitioner's husband is said to have committed suicide after altercations
with his parents. According to the petitioner, the respondents continued
physical and mental torture upon her and prevented her from entering
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 5
into the house settled in favour of her husband, which was her shared
household.
4. The Trial Court, after the evaluation of the evidence
tendered by the petitioner and five witnesses as PW1 to PW6, and the
documents marked as Exts.P1 to P19, granted the protection order
restraining respondents 2 to 5 from committing acts of domestic
violence against the petitioner and dispossessing her, or in any other
manner disturbing the possession of the petitioner in the shared
household. The above respondents were also restrained from alienating
or disposing of or encumbering the 5.80 Ares of land comprised in
Re-Survey No.347/2 of Venmani Village and the shared household
situated therein. The learned Magistrate further ordered the
respondents 2 to 5 to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner
for the mental agonies and emotional distress caused by the acts of
their domestic violence.
5. Though the respondents challenged the above verdict of the
learned Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in
Crl.A No.160/2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the
verdict of the learned Magistrate except for a slight modification
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 6
reducing the compensation amount to Rs.10,000/-. It is aggrieved by
the aforesaid verdicts of the Trial Court and the appellate Court that the
respondents 2 to 5 preferred the present revision before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners,
learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Public
Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
7. On going through the case records, it is seen that the
petitioner has convincingly established through the evidence adduced
before the Trial Court, the acts of domestic violence perpetrated upon
her by the respondents 2 to 5. One of the main arguments advanced by
the respondents 2 to 5 before the Appellate Court was that the Family
Court, Mavelikkara, in O.S No.1099/2013, had rendered a judgment on
29.10.2014 holding that the settlement deed executed in favour of the
petitioner's husband had not come into effect and hence the petitioner
was not entitled to get declaration of her one half right over the said
property on the basis of the aforesaid settlement deed. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mat.A No.1097/2014 on
20.03.2025 setting aside the above finding of the Family Court,
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 7
Mavelikkara and declaring the title and possession of the petitioner over
one half share of the property conveyed by the above settlement deed.
Even otherwise, it could be seen that the evidence adduced by the
petitioner before the learned Magistrate convincingly established the fact
that the building constructed in the aforesaid property covered by that
settlement deed, is the shared household of the petitioner. There is
absolutely no illegality, impropriety or error in the judgment rendered by
the Appellate Court upholding the findings of the learned Magistrate,
with the modification of reducing the compensation amount to
Rs.10,000/-. The Appellate Court had arrived at the findings in the
above regard in its judgment on the basis of sound judicial reasoning
and pragmatic analysis of evidence. The aforesaid findings are not
liable to be dislodged in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.
Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners in this revision to set aside the
judgment dated 13.11.2018 in Crl.A No.160/2015 of the Additional
Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, cannot be allowed.
In the result, the revision is hereby dismissed.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
2026:KER:8903
Crl.R.P No.1614/2018 8
jsr
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 1614 OF 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.160/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-I, MAVELIKKARA, DATED 13.11.2018.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.05.2018 IN
M.C.NO.116/2011 OF JFCM-I, CHENGANNUR.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
O.S.(OTHERS)NO.1099/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 ON
THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.08.2018
BEFORE THE DY.S.P., CHENGANNUR.
