Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.R.Anitha, J.
Baby Michael – Petitioner
Versus
Shiny Michael and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 378 of 2021
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 - Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 – Domestic violence – Settlement between parties - Inspite of settlement, respondent continued the ill-treatment and harassment – Section 20of the Act envisages the powers of the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to make the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person – Para 31.
Finding of the Court :
Jurisdiction of the revisional court, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction is restricted to analyse the illegality or impropriety and during that course it is not expected to act as a court of appeal by appreciating the evidence and facts and circumstances afresh so as to enter into a different conclusion than that has been arrived at by the two fact finding bodies. Child has been defined as any person below 18 years under Section 2(b) of the Act. The Act is a self contained Act. Hence it can be safely concluded that only minor children of the aggrieved person are entitled for maintenance - Magistrate to provide maintenance to the daughters till they got married is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and also the settled position of law and hence is liable to be interfered with.
Result : Petition allowed
ORDER :
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment in Crl.A.No.59 of 2019 on the files of Additional District & Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha which was directed against the order in M.C.No.2/2015 dated 24.01.2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Perumbavoor.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent/husband in M.C.No.2/2015 which has been filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act') by the first respondent herein who is the wife of the revision petitioner seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. Averments in M.C.No.2/2015 in brief is as follows: (Parties shall be referred as per their status in M.C.No.2/2015).
3. Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 24.06.1996. After marriage, they lived in the family house of the respondent for a short while. Thereafter, they went to Mumbai where the respondent was working. The petitioner was given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/-at the time of marriage. Using the amount, 10 cents of property was purchased in the joint names of the parties. In December, 1997 respondent went to Dubai and after six months he took the petitioner to Dubai where she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and ultimately a petition under Section 12 of the Act was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam which was decided ex parte against which respondent filed Crl.A.No.1022/2008. The ex parte order was set aside and the case was remanded and again respondent did not appear and M.C was allowed. Against which respondent filed Crl.A.No.243/2009. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter settled and the petitioner filed Ext.D7 statement expressing her intention not to proceed with the matter. Thereupon Crl.A.No.243/2009 was allowed recording her statement. According to the petitioner, inspite of settlement, respondent continued the ill-treatment and harassment. He did not permit the petitioner to contact her family members and thereby subjected her to cruelty. On 03.03.2011, the parents of the petitioner came to their house and thereafter they went to the family house of the respondent. There, the petitioner and her parents were assaulted by the brother and parents of the respondent. Even though father of the petitioner filed complaint, no action was taken and thereafter petitioner filed complaint and crime No.188/2011 was registered without recording the entire statement of the petitioner since the brother of the respondent was a Head Constable. Since the respondent was not providing maintenance, the petitioner was forced to let out a house covered by Ext.P10 for a rent of Rs.5,250/-, that is the only source of income for the petitioner and the three children. The petitioner and the children were depending on the parents and brothers. Respondent is having a monthly income of Rs.1,50,000/-and the petitioner and children are residing in a house situated in Ext.P9 property. Respondent misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner. The children of the petitioner are studying. Hence she claims Rs.15,000/-towards her maintenance, Rs.8,000/-each towards the maintenance of the elder daughters and Rs.5,000/-towards the younger one. Accordingly she claims reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.
4. Respondent filed objection denying the entire allegations but marriage and paternity of the children are admitted. According to him, ever since the marriage, he has been ill-treated by the petitioner making the matrimonial life miserable. In October, 2000 he suffered a stroke while in Sharjah and was bed ridden for five months. Neither the petitioner nor her family members bothered to enquire about him even though they were informed about the illness. On 06.08.2007, the petitioner fell down and sustained an injury. In connection with the same, brother of the petitioner manhandled and abused him and his aged mothe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
