The court affirmed the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, enabling protection and residence orders for victims facing domestic violence.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment in Crl.A.No.241/2018 dated 06.09.2018 on the file of Court of Sessions, Kottayam, whereby the order passed in CMP No.8331/2017 in M.C.No.33/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, which was a petition filed u/s.23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was confirmed. As per that order the learned Magistrate passed an order restraining the petitioner herein from causing any physical assault or verbal abuse on the petitioner and also from committing any act detrimental to the peaceful stay of the petitioner in the shared household and further restraining petitioner from interfering with the right of the respondent to take the income from the petition schedule property in the name of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent is the mother of the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in CMP No.8331/2017, against which, the petitioner-

son came up in revision before this Court.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that revision petition is not pressed and he is not intending to cause any physical assault or verbal abuse on the petitioner and also will not commit any act detrimental to the peaceful stay of the petitioner in the shared household and hence he filed a memo for dismissal of the Crl. Revision Petition as withdrawn.

3. Apex Court in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar & Ors.

[ (2007) 7 SCC 623 ] it has been held that dismissal of Criminal Revision Petition for default or non prosecution without going into the merits is not permissible. In Lalu Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2016 (1) KHC 300 ] a learned Single Judge held that a revision petition once admitted, it has to be disposed on merits. So this Court cannot dismiss the criminal revision petition accepting the not press memo filed by the petitioner.

4. On going through the judgment of the order of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge it appears that the 1st respondent - mother has approached the court alleging various acts of domestic violence at the instance of the petitioner – son herein.

5. As per the averments in the petition, first respondent had been residing with her mentally challenged daughter at the house which belonged her husband, who died in 10.01.2013. As per the Will No.102/2010 of her husband, 1st respondent was allowed to reside in shared house and she was allowed to collect take yield from the property. She was also allowed to collect the rent for the mobile tower installed in the property and the petitioner and her daughter were cooking food separately. There is various allegations regarding physical torture. It is further alleged that the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent towards maintenance at the instance of the police. She is in need of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is further alleged that she was also on so many occasion manhandled by the wife of the petitioner. She was also not allowed to take yield from the property, even the title deeds of the property are retained by the petitioner. Hence she sought for a direction to the petitioner and his wife to vacate the premises, restrain them from causing annoyance to the peaceful residence of the 1st respondent and her mentally retarded daughter, restrain them from obstructing from taking yield from the property and directing them to return the original title deeds, tax receipts, adhar and identity card and the gold chain.

6. For that, petitioner filed detailed objection challenging the very maintainability of the petition also denied to have caused any obstruction to the 1st respondent and all. According to him, he had effected agricultural operations in the property and the intention of the 1st respondent is to grab money from him and she is acting under the influence of her br