IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2085 of 2009()
1. G.GANESHAN MASTER, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C. LATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRAN,
... Respondent
2. RANJITH GANESHAN AGED 32 YEARS,
3. SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS,
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.PRIYA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :01/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2085 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Respondent No.1 filed a petition in the court of learned Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg under Section 23 of Protection for
Women from Domestic Violence Act. She stated that she was married
to respondent No.2, son of petitioner on 31.10.2008 and thereafter
they lived together as man and wife. From 10.11.2008 onwards
respondent Nos.1 and 2, according to her, were staying in house
No.KMC-11/1332 (hereinafter referred to as “the shared house”). She
alleged that herself and respondent No.2 fell apart and respondent
Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner started harassing her. She claimed
that she is being prevented from entering the shared house and her
ornaments are with respondent No.2 and others. Respondent No.2 is
working in London and earning a monthly income of Rs.1,50,000/-.
She prayed that petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 be restrained
from preventing her entering the shared house. Learned magistrate
passed an ex parte, interim order on 15.11.2008 as per which
petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are prevented from obstructing
respondent No.1 entering the shared house until further orders.
2. Petitioner filed C.M.P. No.5341 to vacate the interim order.
CRL. R.P. No.2085 of 2009
-: 2 :-
He claimed that respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of his
son (respondent No.2) and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have never
resided together in the shared house which belonged to him
absolutely. Learned magistrate considered the petition and found
that petitioner has not produced any document to show that the
shared house exclusively belonged to him and at any rate, in the light
of the decision in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2009 (1)
KLT 175) respondent No.1 has a right of residence in the shared house
whether or not she had a right over the said house. Accordingly
C.M.P. No.5341 of 2008 was dismissed. Petitioner challenged that
order in appeal. Learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the learned magistrate and dismissed the
appeal. Hence the revision.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no
evidence to show that respondent No.1 has resided in the shared
house. Even in the first information statement she had given to the
police on 13.11.2008 she had not stated that she is residing in the
shared house.
4. The document which learned counsel has now relied on
was not produced in the trial court. I am told that the document was
CRL. R.P. No.2085 of 2009
-: 3 :-
produced in the appellate court.
5. On the question whether respondent No.1 is legally
wedded wife of respondent No.2, evidence is required. It is not
possible or proper to say either way at this stage. Now there is the
assertion of respondent No.1 that she is legally married to respondent
No.2 and respondent No.2 has not come forward to challenge that
contention. The contentious issues are to be decided in the trial court
after recording evidence. There is no reason why this Court should
exercise its power of revision and interfere with a discretionary order
passed by the learned magistrate and concurred by the appellate court
as to right of residence of respondent No.1 in the shared house.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that a direction
may be issued to the learned magistrate to expedite trial and
disposal of the petition. Considering the nature of the contentions
raised by the petitioner it is only proper that the learned magistrate
disposed of the petition at the earliest.
Revision is dismissed with the above observation.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv