Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sabari S. Nair, Son Of Late P. Sasidharan Nair – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Rev. Pet No. 689 Of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 25(2); Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397(1), 401 - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, particularly Sections 18 and 25(2), which govern protection orders and their modification. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that interim orders can be sought to protect the aggrieved person from economic abuse, including the repossession of property. The court concluded that the revision petition was maintainable and upheld the lower court's orders, emphasizing the need to protect the aggrieved person's financial resources.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking reliefs against her husband, who allegedly threatened her and took away her car. The wife claimed the car was essential for her and her child's daily needs. The husband contested the ownership of the vehicle, asserting he made the payment for it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife was the registered owner of the vehicle and that the husband's actions constituted economic abuse. The court upheld the lower court's order directing the husband to return the car, emphasizing the need for protection against domestic violence.
Issues: Whether the revision petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable, and whether the interim order for repossession of the vehicle was appropriate under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act allow for interim orders to protect the aggrieved person from economic abuse, and that the High Court has the jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Act, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the interim order for the return of the vehicle was upheld.
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.) :
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging judgment in Crl. Appeal No.99/2024dated 15.06.2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and order in CMP No.1536/2023 inM.C.No.11/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV/Mobile Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The parties in this revision will be referred as to their status before the trial court.
3. The summary of the case is as under:-
M.C. No.11/2023 was filed by the wife as the petitioner, seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘DV Act’ for short hereinafter), where the revision petitioner herein got arrayed as the respondent.
4. The summary of CMP No.1536/2023 is that the respondent/revision petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st petitioner/respondent herein. The 1st petitioner, who is aggrieved by the acts of domestic violence at the instance of the respondent, had filed the M.C. Along with the M.C., she sought for an interim order and obtained an interim protection order against the respondent. The petitioner is now residing at the shared household, viz., Flat No.5C, Le Royale, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram, which is jointly owned by the petitioner and respondent. It is her specific allegation that the respondent, in order to alienate their shared household, had threatened her and her daughter, warning them to evict from the house at the earliest. On 20.08.2023, the respondent forcefully took away her Toyota Fortuner Car (White Pearl Crystal colour) bearing registration No.KL-01-CG-7777 which was parked at the parking space of the shared household. She informed this matter to the nearby police station and the police had directed the 1st petitioner to get an order from the court. According the 1st petitioner, the vehicle was used to pick up and drop the 2nd petitioner from her school and the respondent was doing all the above said alleged acts only to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, she sought for the custody of the car.
5. The application was objected on the ground that the husband made payment for the vehicle. Therefore, the absolute ownership claimed by the wife, though she is the registered owner is not sustainable.
6. After adjudicating the matter, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the respondent/husband to return the car, which was admitted to be in possession of the respondent, within one week from the date of the order. Challenging the said order, Crl. Appeal No.99/2024 was filed before the Sessions Court and the Additional Sessions Court confirmed the order.
7. Before issuance of the interim order in CMPNo.1536/2023, initially the wife and minor child filed Crl.M.P. No.2283/2023 seeking interim reliefs, and thereby the Magistrate granted two reliefs as per order dated 10.08.2023.
ii) The respondent is restrained from evicting the petitioners from the petitioner's shared household of Flat No.5C, Le Royale, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram until further orders.
8. Challenging the reliefs granted in Crl.M.P.No.2283/2023 dated 10.08.2023 and the relief granted in CMPNo.1536/2023 in M.C. No.11/2023, O.P. (Crl.) No.468/2024 had been filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition holding that the remedy of the petitioner is to file a revision petition. The learned Single Judge also found that as far as the relief granted in CMP No.1536/2023is concerned, the interim order stood merged with the appellate judgment.
9. It is at this juncture, the present revision petition has been filed. While challenging the orders, a specific point raisedby the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that if an interim order under Section 18 is passed, another order should not be passed except in accordance with the mandat
The court established that interim reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act can include the repossession of property to prevent economic abuse, and that the High Court has the authority to review orde....
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
Economic abuse is included in the definition of domestic violence under the DV Act, allowing for protection orders while property disputes are adjudicated in civil courts.
The court clarified the nature of interlocutory orders and their impact on the rights of the parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the aggrieved person has the right to seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act at any stage, even if living separately from the respondent.
The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by....
Allegations of domestic violence must be proven for entitlement to reliefs under the DV Act, and the court may consider the respondent's financial resources in determining maintenance allowance.
The court established that reliefs under the DV Act are civil, and appeals against such orders cannot be treated as criminal proceedings.
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
