IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2117 of 2010()
1. FAISAL BABU.P.A., S/O.P.U.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
2. DR.P.U.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
3. ALEEMA, W/O.DR.P.U.ABDUL RAHIMAN
4. WAHEEDA, AGED 35 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. C.A.SHAKEELA, D/O.ABDUL SALIM
For Petitioner :SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :03/08/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.2117 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010.
O R D E R
The respondents 1 to 4 in Crl.M.P.No.5984/08 of the Court
of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad, are the revision
petitioners herein. The wife and son of the 1st revision petitioner
approached the trial court by filing a petition under the provisions
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
By the impugned order the learned Magistrate directed the first
counter petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- in the
court from March 2009 onwards.
2. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision petitioners
herein approached the Sessions Court, Palakkad by filing
Crl.A.NO.239/09 and the learned Sessions Judge after an
elaborate consideration and discussion of the issue involved in
the case dismissed the appeal and directed the lower appellate
court to dispose the application filed u/s.12 of the Act (M.C.20/09)
as expeditiously as possible. It was also directed that, the parties
to appear in that court on 1.7.2010. This revision petition is
Crl. R.P.No.2117 of 2010
2
preferred against the order of the lower appellate court.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently
argued that, the order passed by the trial court is inherently
incorrect and illegal as the affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner before
the trial court was filed u/s.12 of the Act. The learned counsel
invited my attention to Annexure-A3 affidavit. Thus according to
the learned counsel, the orders of the lower appellate court and
the trial court are liable to be set aside.
4. In para 12 of the appellate court judgment it is stated
that, “It is true that in the impugned order the lower court has
stated that the order was being passed on the affidavit filed
by the petitioner u/s.23(2) of the Act. Infact, the order was
passed by the lower court in Crl.M.PL.5984/08 filed u/s.12 of
the Act which was later converted into M.C.20/09. It is seen
from the records that the first petitioner has filed separate
affidavits on 20.11.2008 and also 20.12.2008 seeking interim
reliefs. The fact that the lower court has passed the interim
order in the main petition itself cannot be considered as an
illegality to set aside the order.” Going by the impugned orders
Crl. R.P.No.2117 of 2010
3
and the materials produced before this court along with the
revision petition it can be seen that, the marriage between the 1st
revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent is admitted and also
there is no dispute regarding the paternity of the 3rd respondent.
By the impugned order the learned Magistrate only directed the 1st
revision petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the petitioners. A very purpose of the enactment
of the above act is to redress the grievance of the woman, who
are subjected to domestic violence. As rightly pointed out by the
lower appellate court, even if there is some mistake in quoting
provisions under which the petitions are filed before the trial court,
the same shall not be a ground to deny the benefit contemplated
under the provisions of the above act. Beside the above facts,
the appellate court has already directed the trial court to expedite
the disposal of the matter pending before the trial court.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that, though the revision petitioner has deposited certain amounts
towards the payment of the monthly maintenance ordered by the
lower appellate court, the same has not withdrawn by the
Crl. R.P.No.2117 of 2010
4
claimants. According to the learned counsel, the trial court not
proceeded with the main matters pending before it, though there
is a direction from the appellate court, since the petitioner has not
deposited the remaining arrears. If it is a fact, that the amount
already deposited by the revision petitioner in the court below has
not withdrawn by the petitioners, there is no meaning in insisting
the revision petitioners to deposit the balance amount. In case
aggrieved persons moved in the trial court for withdrawing the
amount already deposited and for the future maintenance, then
the trial court can pass appropriate orders on such petitions and
till that time the petitioners need not be insisted for paying the
balance amount.
In the result, relegating the revision petitioners to approach
the trial court for expeditious disposal of M.C.20/09 and subject to
the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/