Due process in maintenance orders under domestic violence laws and the implications of delay in legal response.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 290 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2025 IN CRL.A NO.374 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 IN CMP 2544/2024 IN MC NO.52 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, WADAKKANCHERRY, REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

VISHNU KAILAS PILLAI AGED 33 YEARS S/O KAILAS PILLAI, MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY DESOM, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 BY ADV SHRI.R.KISHORE RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STAT E :

1 SHREEJA.K.NAIR D/O PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, KAZHUNGODATHU HOUSE, VARAVOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680585

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PP. ADV. SRI. BREEZ.M.S THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2026 The 1^st respondent in M.C.No.52/2024 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry, filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.374/2024.

2. The above M.C. case was filed by the 1^st respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2012, seeking various reliefs. Along with the M.C. she filed CMP No.2544/2024 seeking some interim reliefs. As per order dated 21.06.2024, the learned Magistrate passed an exparte order granting various reliefs including a direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. Instead of appearing before the learned Magistrate and filing counter to CMP No.2544/2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed as per order dated 08.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, he came up with this Criminal Revision Petition.

3. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner has not preferred counter to CMP No.2544/2024 before the learned Magistrate till 06.06.2025, instead he directly approached the Sessions Court in appeal. Finally during the pendency of the appeal, he moved Annexure 4 on 06.06.2025 praying for modifying the order passed in CMP No.2544/2024. The learned counsel could not give any explanation as to why the revision petitioner has not approached the learned Magistrate immediately after the interim order was passed. It appears that, finally he filed counter to CMP No.2544/2024 only about one year after the date of impugned order, that too during the pendency of the appeal.

4. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself and as such the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate without hearing him is not in order. If so, the remedy of the petitioner was to immediately approach the Magistrate by filing counter and pressing for hearing CMP No.2544/2024 on merits. Instead of filing the counter immediately, he waited for about one year for filing the counter and also for filing an application for modifying the said order. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the court below so as to call for any interference. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-