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

K.HARILAL
Joby – Appellant
Versus
Elsy – Respondent


Counsels for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Joby Cyriac, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Liju V. Stephen, PP, P.Biney Joseph & T.Rajesh, Advocates.

ORDER

K. Harilal, J.— The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.78/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala. The said case was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner herein seeking a protection order from domestic violence, compensation of Rs.4,00,000 and maintenance. The preliminary objection raised by the revision petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not a wife coming under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Put it differently, objection is that there is no domestic relationship between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent. After considering the objection, the trial court found that the averments in the petition disclose the domestic relationship between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent and thereby the 1st respondent is a wife coming under Section 12 of the Family Court Act. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the preliminary objection the revision petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. After re-appreciating the evidence, the Sessions Court also confirmed the findings of the trial court.





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