Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Omana Thomas W/o Late K.J. Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Ajith Prakash S/o Late K.J. Thomas – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Under challenge in this Revision Petition is the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam, in Crl.Appeal No.286/2023, which appeal was carried from the judgment in M.C.No.43/2022, of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (E.O), Ernakulam, a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act', for short). The petitioner in the M.C, a woman aged 84 years, sought relief against her son in terms of Section 18 and 19 of the D.V. Act. Finding domestic violence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted reliefs, both under Sections 18 and 19, including the relief compelling the respondent/son from removing himself from the shared household, within a period of two weeks. However, in Appeal, all the reliefs, except the one under Section 19(1)(b) - which mandated the respondent/son from removing himself from the shared household - was confirmed. As regards that relief, the appellate court, in the impugned judgment, found that the relief under Section 19(1)(b) of the D.V. Act cannot be resorted to by the petitioner (revision petitioner herein) as a short cut to get the respondent
The court emphasized that personal knowledge is essential for testimony in domestic violence cases, and relief under the D.V. Act must be based on direct evidence from the aggrieved person.
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.
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....
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance and other relief from her father-in-law according to the provisions of the PWDV Act.
For relief under the PWDVA, the complainant must substantiate claims of domestic violence with evidence, not merely rely on cross-examination denials.
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.
(1) Ratio of decision is apposite to the facts and circumstances.(2) Cannot be said that no protection relief has been sought for against the present petitioner.
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.
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
