Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
SREEJITHA – Appellant
Versus
SHYLAJA PRAKASH – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 435/2018
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 25(2) - The court allowed the petitioner to seek modification of prior orders under the Act due to changed circumstances, emphasizing the right to seek revisited relief.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act after several orders were issued against respondents, involving issues of domestic violence and rights of residence and protection. Subsequent to appeals and dismissals, the petitioner sought to modify past orders after her marital relationship deteriorated.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioner's changed circumstances and permitted her to file for modification of the earlier orders, emphasizing the right to revisit decisions under the Domestic Violence Act based on new evidence and situations.
Issues: The main issue concerned whether the petitioner could modify prior orders under the Domestic Violence Act in light of her changed relationship status and living circumstances with her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner had the right to seek modification of existing orders due to significant changes in her circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to file for modification of the prior order under the Domestic Violence Act.
ORDER
Crl.M.C. No.27/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal is a proceeding initiated by the mother of the revision petitioner in both these cases under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. M.C. No.27/2010 was disposed of by order dated 09.04.2015 directing as follows:
“(a) The respondents are restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner, (b) The respondents are restrained from committing violence to any person who give assistance to the petitioner from meting out domestic violence from the respondents.
(c) Respondents are restrained from disposing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared house hold (the address of the house shown as the residence of the petitioner in this petition) Whether or not the respondents have a legal or equitable interest in the shared house hold.
(d) The respondents or any of the their relatives are restrained from entering any portion of the shared house hold.
(e) The respondents are restrained from alienating, encumbering or disposing of the shared house hold in any manner, what so ever.”
2. The revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.127 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by order dated 07.04.2017 prompting the revision petitioner to approach this Court by filing Crl.R.P. No.434 of 2018.
3. The petitioner in these cases filed M.C. No.200 of 2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act against her mother. That petition was dismissed on 10.10.2014, against which she filed Crl.A. No. 64 of 2017 before the Sessions Court, which was filed along with the delay of 877 days. The Sessions Court found no justifiable reason to condone the delay and accordingly the delay petition and consequently the appeal (Crl.A. No.64 of 2017) came to be dismissed. It is, challenging this order by the Sessions Court that Crl.R.P. No.435 of
2018 has been filed before this Court.
4. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after the filing of the revision petitions, the relationship between the revision petitioner and her husband have soured and there is a petition for divorce filed at the instance of the petitioner against her husband, which is now pending as O.P. No.352 of 2022 before the Family Court, Attingal. He submits that going by the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , the Magistrate may, on an application from the aggrieved person modify, alter or revoke any order made under the Act for reasons to be recorded. He submits that since the revision petitioner is now living separate from her husband, the revision petitioner may be permitted to file an application for modification of the order in M.C. No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, and the same may be directed to be considered on merits by the said Court.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/mother of the revision petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both these cases, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/mother of the revision petitioner, I am of the opinion that considering the limited nature of relief now sought for by the revision petitioner, these revision petitions can be disposed of permitting the revision petitioner to file an application under Section 25 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , in M.C. No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal and further directing that if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider whether any modification, alteration etc. of the order dated 19.04.2015 in M.C. No.27 of 2010 is to
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
