IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 20 of 2011(B) ---------------------------- CRA.58/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.5474/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS : APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAKUMARAN, S/O.SARASWATHY, SMARANANJALI, KRA 43, TC 7/762, BHASI NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SARASWATHY, W/O.KUTTAN, SMARANANJALI, KRA 43, TC 7/762, BHASI NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS : APPLICANT & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. SREELEKHA, D/O.SARASAMMA, TC.5/124, MELEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ALATHARA, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAYAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.20 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners herein are the respondents in C.M.P No.5474 of 2007, which is a petition preferred by one Sreelekha, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner herein, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that the direction issued under item 5 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate directing the first revision petitioner to pay Rs.1,50,000/-, which was given to him at the time of engagement of marriage, with interest @ 9% from 05.07.2007 till the date of payment, is without any basis and the evidence on record would show that the claim of the aggrieved person is against the evidence and materials on record. Since the arguments of the learned counsel confined against the 5th direction, issued by the learned Magistrate, I am of the view that I need not go into the other aspects and case especially when the appellate court has already confirmed the directions issued by the learned Magistrate except the nineth direction. Crl.R.P No.20 of 2011 2 3. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, especially on the basis of the evidence referred to by the learned Magistrate in para.5 of its judgment, it can be seen that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was given to the first revision petitioner on the date of engagement, was given by the brother of the aggrieved person as evidenced by Ext.P6 passbook. The learned Magistrate, after considering Ext.P6 passbook, has observed that the brother of the aggrieved person has withdrawn Rs.2 lakhs and that amount was used for giving Rs.1.50,000/- to the respondent. It is also observed that the remaining amount was also used for purchasing 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments on 08.07.2006. It is on the basis of the above observation, the learned counsel submitted that if the amount was withdrawn on 08.07.2006, the claim of the aggrieved person that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- given to the revision petitioner on 05.07.2006-the date of engagement, is absolutely false and incorrect. I am unable to sustain the above contention. It is crystal clear from the observation of the learned Magistrate that Rs.2 lakhs was withdrawn from the account of the brother of the aggrieved person as evidenced by Ext.P6. What the learned Magistrate has observed is that Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the first revision Crl.R.P No.20 of 2011 3 petitioner on the date of engagement, ie. 05.07.2006, out of the amount withdrawn from the account of the brother of the aggrieved person. The balance amount out of Rs.2,00,000/- was utilised for purchasing 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments on 08.07.2006. Admittedly the marriage was on 12.07.2006. Therefore it is natural and probable that the ornaments were purchased subsequently on 08.07.06, ie. before the marriage and the engagement. Hence it is only to be confirmed that the aggrieved person has established that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner on the date of engagement. Therefore I find no illegality in the observation and findings of the learned Magistrate so as to interfere with the fifth direction issued by the learned Magistrate. No other contentions are raised. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) rtr/-