The court affirmed that the revision petitioner, as the husband, is liable for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, recognizing the respondent as an aggrieved person.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate – II, Palakkad and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.88 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad. The Appellate court dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner by confirming the direction to pay Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner in the M.C and Rs.2,000/- each to the children as monthly maintenance.

2. Heard Sri.Ravi.K, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms.Shylaja.V, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri.Alex.M.Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the first respondent is not an aggrieved person and the very invocation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') is per se illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that admittedly the revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of two children born to them and in view of the definition of “aggrieved person and child” in Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Act, there is no merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent is not an aggrieved person. It is also pointed out that the trial court raised a point as to whether the respondent herein suffered any kind of domestic violence and recorded a finding that the revision petitioner committed domestic violence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and the said finding of the trial court is also confirmed in appeal.

5. It is well settled that revisional power is a type of supervisory jurisdiction meant to rectify injustices and it is not the same as the appellate jurisdiction, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452] The revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless there are glaring indications of a grave injustice or a blatant violation of the law.

6. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case and the revisional court considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings and the revisional court cannot substitute its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inAmit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another [(2012) 9 SCC 460] and Kishan Rao v. Shankargauda [(2018) 8 SCC 165] .

7. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-