IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1402 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.831/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM MC.29/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/FIRST RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BINOD, S/O. THANKAYYAN, AGED 27 YEARS, CHERUPALAKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAKONAM, KODANGAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/AGGRIVED PERSONS :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.R.SREEDEVI, D/O. PRASANNAKUMARI, AGED 24, MELE PRASANNA VILASAM, BHUDANOOR, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (NOW RESIDING AT DESRA 130, KUNJU MADAM, SUBHASH NAGAR, PERUMTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 8. 3. AMRITA DEVI, AGED 4 AND HALF YEARS, MINOR, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. 4. AISWARYA DEVI, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR RESIDING AT -DO-. MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 19.2.2010 of the court of Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.No.831/2009 dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 2.1.2009 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.M.C.No.29/2008, issued under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are the children of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Respondents 2 to 3 approached the trial court against the revision petitioner by filing a petition under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the learned Magistrate passed an order with certain directions to the Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 : 2 : revision petitioner including to pay monthly maintenance to the claimant therein and the said order was issued in the absence of the revision petitioner. 3. It is the above order of the learned Magistrate, sought to be challenged by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram being the appellate court, by filing an appeal. Thus, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.831/2009 and along with the said appeal he had filed Crl.M.P.No.3064/2009 to condone the delay of 288 days as the appeal was belated. By detailed order dated 23.1.2010, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition condoning the delay but subject to certain terms. The learned Sessions Judge, subsequently found that the revision petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the order dated 23.1.2010 and consequently the appeal has been dismissed. The present revision petition is filed against the above orders of the lower appellate court. Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 : 3 : 4. I have heard Sri. R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There was no appearance for the respondents in the lower appellate court and in view of the order proposed to pass this revision petition, I am of the view that notice to the respondents can be dispensed with. 5. It is beyond dispute that the impugned order of trial court is issued in the absence of the revision petitioner. It is also not discernible whether any evidence was taken or not. It is also pertinent to note that the Sessions Court was inclined to maintain the appeal though it was belated on condition the revision petitioner ready to comply with the conditions incorporated in the order dated 23.1.2010 of the Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.3064/2009. Though the petitioner was granted sufficient time to comply with the condition stipulated in the order, he had failed to scrupulously follow the conditions stipulated in the order. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 : 4 : that the revision petitioner had involved in a road accident and he had no work and earning so as to raise the amount within the stipulated time and the delay was occurred because of the above road accident. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case I am of the view that especially when the lower appellate court was inclined to entertain the appeal, one more opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner to prosecute the above appeal in the lower appellate court but subject to conditions. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of on the following conditions:- (1)The revision petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost as directed by the lower appellate court and in the manner directed in the order dated 23.1.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3064/2009. (2)The revision petitioner is also directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.25,000/-in the trial court within one month from today. Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 : 5 : (3)The petitioner shall continue to pay future maintenance at the rate of half of the monthly maintenance amount ordered by the trial court. The payment of which shall be commenced on expiry of one month time from today. The petitioner is free to deposit the future monthly maintenance amount as ordered above, in the trial court on every month. On deposit of such amount by the revision petitioner as indicated above, the respondents 2 to 4 are free to withdraw the same. (4)The revision petitioner is directed to produce receipt before the appellate court, showing the remittance of Rs.25,000/- in the trial court as directed above, within 10 days from the date of such remittance. (5)On producing the receipt showing the remittance as directed above the lower appellate court is directed to restore the appeal on file and proceed with the Crl.R.P.No.1402 of 2010 : 6 : same, on his satisfaction that the revision petitioner is comply with the conditions incorporated in this order, in accordance with the procedure and law and disposed the same on merit. These conditions are subjected to further orders that may be passed by the lower appellate court in the appeal. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the conditions 1 and 2 within the stipulated time, this revision petition shall stand dismissed. The coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall kept in abeyance for a period of one month and the further proceeding therein shall be only on subject to order that may be passed by the lower appellate court in this regard. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt