Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, J
SHIJO – Appellant
Versus
RENJU RAJAN Advocate - R PRIYA, ,R PRIYA,M B SANDEEP,V VISAL AJAYAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 879/2013
Domestic Violence - Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 20 - The court upheld the order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance and return gold ornaments, interpreting the evidentiary standards for domestic violence claims and the financial responsibilities of the spouse.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act seeking maintenance and return of gold ornaments due to alleged mental and physical cruelty from the petitioner after their marriage. The petitioner denied the allegations but admitted the marriage.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of domestic violence and whether the maintenance and return of ornaments ordered by the lower court were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the absence of evidence to disprove claims of domestic violence necessitates upholding claims of cruelty and ensuring financial support for the aggrieved spouse.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, confirming the lower court’s orders.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.29/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.172/2012 on the files of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-I), Thodupuzha. The 1st respondent herein filed the above M.C. under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking reliefs under Sections 18 and 20.
2. The allegation in the original petition is that the marriage of the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 6.4.2005 and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the revision petitioner by the parents of the 1st respondent. From the 8th day of the marriage, the revision petitioner, his mother and sister abused the 1st respondent by alleging that the dowry given to her is very low. On 19.6.2005, the revision petitioner along with his mother and sister assaulted her and caused injury. The mother and sister of the revision petitioner used to tell him false allegations about her and, based on those allegations, the revision petitioner brutally attacked her. The further allegation is that out of the 10 sovereigns, the revision petitioner sold away 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments for his personal purpose. On 26.8.2009 at night, the revision petitioner, his mother and sister assaulted the 1st respondent. However, the neighbours interfered and rescued her and she was taken to Nedumkandam Medical Trust Hospital for medical attendance for the injuries caused by the revision petitioner, his mother and sister. In the above situation, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and now she his living separately without forfeiting her right to claim maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner. Hence the 1st respondent prayed for maintenance allowance at the rate of ` 4,000/- per month, a compensation of ` 10,000/- and an order directing the revision petitioner to return 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken by him and also a protection order under Section 18 of the D.V. Act.
3. The revision petitioner filed an objection admitting the marriage, but denying the allegations of harassment and cruelties said to have been meted out to the 1st respondent by him and other family members. He specifically denied the allegations of assault on 1.1.2006 and 26.8.2009. According to him, due to financial stringency, the gold ornaments were sold by the 1st respondent herself. But, a pair of anklet and one bangle were pledged by the revision petitioner in the Co- operative Bank. He is ready to give back the same to the 1st respondent. According to him, he has no income or ability to give the amount claimed by the 1st respondent.
4. The 1st respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked for her. The revision petitioner was examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence has been adduced by him. After considering the rival contentions, the court below passed the order directing the revision petitioner to give maintenance allowance @ `3,000/- to the 1st respondent and her daughter from the date of order. Further, the revision petitioner was directed to give `60,000/- towards the price of 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments within 3 months from the date of order. So also, the revision petitioner was restrained from committing any physical or verbal harassment to the 1st respondent. The legality, propriety and correctness of the said order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge? The marriage and the paternity of the child are admitted. Though the revision petitioner had flatly denied the allegations of mental and physical harassments and assault, the 1st respondent had given oral evidence to substantiate her grievance which she had suffered in the matrim
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
