IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1081 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.794/2009 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM MC.54/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------------ K.K. BABU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, KALAYIL HOUSE, KULAYITTIKKARA P.O., ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. ABRAHAM P.GEORGE MS. K.V.LEKSHMY MS. C.L.MANJU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMBIKA P., W/O. BABU, KALAYIL HOUSE, KULAYITTIKKARA P.O., ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1081 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who is admittedly the husband of the 1st respondent, was the counter petitioner in M.C. No. 54 of 2009 filed by her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Ernakulam under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per Interim Applications, the 1st respondent Ambika sought a protection order under Section 18 and a residence order under Section 19 of the said Act. The ex parte order initially granted was subsequently made absolute by the learned Magistrate after hearing the revision petitioner as well. 2. While according to the wife, at a time when she was residing along with the revision petitioner in the shared household, she was thrown out of the house by the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner would have have it that Crl.R.P. No. 1081/2010 : 2 : she had abandoned the shared household on being detected in a compromising position with the revision petitioner's nephew. Anyway, the fact remains that the revision petitioner has sought a decree of divorce by approaching the Family Court, Ernakulam and the said matter is pending. Unless and until the competent court grants a decree of divorce, the 1st respondent continues to be the wife of the revision petitioner and she has, by virtue of Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a right to reside in the shared household which right has been protected under Sections 18 and 19. The order passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 794 of 2009. The findings recorded by the courts below are factual findings which this Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction will be loath to interfere. I see no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. Crl.R.P. No. 1081/2010 : 3 : 3. This revision is accordingly dismissed. I am sure that the learned Magistrate shall finally dispose of M.C. No. 54 of 2009 expeditiously and at any rate within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv