IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2058 of 2010()
1. UMA DEVI, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SOMAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SARASAMMA, W/O.SOMAN,
3. RAJAMMA, W/O.RAJU, REMYA BHAVANAM,
4. VIJAYAMMA, W/O.ARJUNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July 2010
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the petitioner in
M.C.No.44/2007.
2. Though the petitioner had approached the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-II, Haripad by filing a petition
under Sec.12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the learned
Magistrate by order dated 18.2.2009 in M.C.No.44/2007
dismissed the said petition. Against the above order,
though the revision petitioner had preferred
Crl.A.No.422/2009, by judgment dated 1.6.2010, the
learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal as there
was no representation. It is the above orders of the court of
Addl. Sessions Judge, Mavelikara and the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-II, Haripad are challenged in this
Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010
-: 2 :-
revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner and also perused the above orders of
the court below.
4. The revision petitioner is the aggrieved person,
who filed the above M.C. before the Court of Judicial First
Class Magistrate-II, Haripad against the respondents
among thereon. 1st and 2nd respondents are the parents of
the husband of the petitioner and the remaining
respondents are the sisters of the 2nd respondent.
According to the aggrieved person, the son of 1st and 2nd
respondent, namely Sreenu, married the aggrieved person
on 6.7.2003 as per the religious rites and the petitioner had
52 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her
marriage. The relatives of the petitioner entrusted Rs.1.5
lakhs to respondents 1 and 2. It is also the claim of the
aggrieved person that the relatives of the petitioner also
gave household articles and utensils to the petitioner.
According to the aggrieved person, the respondents started
Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010
-: 3 :-
ill-treating the petitioner subsequent to the marriage and
the respondents took all the gold ornaments of the
petitioner, except 5 sovereigns of gold and that gold
ornaments were used for their own needs. It is also the
case of the aggrieved person that the respondents have
used Rs.1.5 lakhs received from the relatives of the
petitioner to modify their house. Finally, the respondents
have ousted the petitioner out of her shared household. The
prayer of the petitioner in the petition is to permit her to
reside in her shared household and to direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to gave back 52 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs.
5. During the trial, the aggrieved person was herself
examined as PW1 and no documentary evidence produced.
Though the aggrieved person had claimed that 52
sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the
respondents 1 and 2 and Rs.1.5 lakhs, which was entrusted
by the relatives of the petitioner, was misappropriated by
respondents 1 and 2, the trial court has found that there is
Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010
-: 4 :-
no evidence for the entrustment. The trial court has
specifically found that the aggrieved person has not
furnished the details of the gold ornaments which she had.
It is also the finding of the trial court that regarding the
gold ornaments and the alleged entrustment of Rs.1.5 lakhs,
absolutely there is no evidence and the aggrieved person
failed to produce any convincing evidence. Same is the
finding of the trial court with respect to the household
articles also. The trial court specifically found that during
the cross examination of PW1, she has stated that
Rs.25,000/- was entrusted to the daughter of 1st respondent
and 5 cents of property was transferred in the name of the
petitioner. So the learned Magistrate found that the above
evidence probabilise the case of the respondents. So the
trial court concluded that the evidence adduced by the
petitioner is not convincing to hold that 52 sovereigns of
gold ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs were entrusted with the
respondents 1 and 2. It is also pertinent to note that the
husband of the aggrieved person is not a party in the
Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010
-: 5 :-
proceedings. So on facts, based upon evidence the trial
court found against the revision petitioner and accordingly
dismissed the petition. The above findings were though
challenged in an appeal, the appeal was not properly
prosecuted and accordingly, the same was dismissed by the
lower appellate court. In the light of the above discussion
and the evidence and materials referred above, which relied
on by the trial court, even if an opportunity given to the
revision petitioner, there will not be any fruitful turn out,
rather it will result only in the waste of judicial time.
In the above circumstances, I find no reason to
interfere with the orders impugned and accordingly, the
revision petition is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Jvt