The court upheld protective measures under domestic violence law due to established acts of domestic violence and affirmed lower court decisions.

ORDER

The reliefs granted to an aggrieved person in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are under challenge in this revision at the instance of the respondents 2 to 5 in the proceedings before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter in their capacities as the petitioner and the respondents respectively, as they figured in the proceedings before the Trial Court in M.C.No.116/2011.

2. The petitioner is the wife of late Premkumar who was the son of late N.Raveendran, arraigned as the first respondent, and Rohini, the second respondent. The first respondent in the M.C passed away during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Respondents 3 and 5 in the M.C were the sisters of the deceased husband of the petitioner. The 4th respondent is the husband of the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate seeking the reliefs of protection order, residence order and compensation from the respondents 2 to 5. She contended that the respondents had obtained a total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from her at the time of the marriage with late Premkumar on 11.05.2010. It was further contended that 17.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments which belonged to the petitioner were also appropriated by the respondents for the construction of a residential building. In addition to that, the respondents were also alleged to have taken away the household articles worth Rs.45,000/- which belonged to the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are said to have executed settlement deed No.1881/2011 of Cheriyanad Sub Registry in respect of a newly constructed house and the land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 20.09.2011 in acknowledgement of the fact that the gold ornaments and money which belonged to the petitioner, were utilised for the construction of the house situated in the land which was settled by virtue of the above document. Thereafter, on 03.10.2011, the petitioner’s husband is said to have committed suicide after altercations with his parents. According to the petitioner, the respondents continued physical and mental torture upon her and prevented her from entering into the house settled in favour of her husband, which was her shared household.

4. The Trial Court, after the evaluation of the evidence tendered by the petitioner and five witnesses as PW1 to PW6, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P19, granted the protection order restraining respondents 2 to 5 from committing acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and dispossessing her, or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the petitioner in the shared household. The above respondents were also restrained from alienating or disposing of or encumbering the 5.80 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.347/2 of Venmani Village and the shared household situated therein. The learned Magistrate further ordered the respondents 2 to 5 to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner for the mental agonies and emotional distress caused by the acts of their domestic violence.

5. Though the respondents challenged the above verdict of the learned Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl.A No.160/2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the verdict of the learned Magistrate except for a slight modification reducing the compensation amount to Rs.10,000/-. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid verdicts of the Trial Court and the appellate Court that the respondents 2 to 5 preferred the present revision before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, le