SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(KER) 920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Paul Joseph S/o.joseph – Appellant
Versus
Thresiakutty, @ Theresa – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. SRI. PRINCE J PANANAL SRI. P.S.SYAMKUTTAN

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be used to enforce monetary reliefs granted under the Domestic Violence Act; demand notices under the Act are unsustainable. (!) (!) - Section 128 CrPC can be applied for maintenance orders, but not for enforcement of orders under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act; its use to enforce D.V. Act monetary reliefs is improper. (!) (!) - Even if enforcement is permissible under Section 125 CrPC, Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked to realize monetary reliefs under the D.V. Act due to lack of enabling notification under Section 71; the enforcement must follow the specific provisions of the D.V. Act. (!) (!) - The court held that Ext.P3(a) and P3(b) demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be sustained and are set aside; writ petition allowed. (!) (!) - The order clarifies that remedies available to the respondent for enforcement of reliefs granted by the Ext.P1 Order will not be affected, and the petitioner’s other remedies remain; O.P. stands dismissed. (!) (!)

What is the admissibility of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for enforcing monetary reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act?

What is the applicability of Section 128 CrPC to enforcement of orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?

What is the proper enforcement procedure for monetary reliefs granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?


JUDGMENT :

W.P. (C) No. 37816 of 2017

1. The petitioner is the previous husband of the 1st respondent and the respondent in M.C No.39/2011 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3(a) and P3(b) demand notice issued in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent/wife, there is no appearance before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P1 Order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, granting relief under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as per which Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded to compensate the mental harassment and cruelty to the respondent/wife by the petitioner/husband. Besides, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was also granted as compensation. The learned counsel would pinpoint that, no amount, whatsoever, was granted towards maintenance in Ext.P1 Order. In purported enforcement of the Ext.P1 Order, Ext.P2 petition, bearing Crl.M.P No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top