IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2359 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.257/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI MC.16/2009 (CMP2771/2011) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ USMAN.K., S/O.ABU HAJI, KOORUKKADAN HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADVS. SRI.ESM.KABEER SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. RAMLATH.P., D/O.UNEEN, PARAPPURAM HOUSE, CHANDANAPARAMBA, PAND AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2359 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.2771/2011 IN M.C.NO.16/2009 DATED 06/08/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.257/2011 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI DATED 24/08/2011. \\ TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2359 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2011 ORDER The respondent in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, 'the Act') against whom an interim order was passed under Section 23(2) of the Act, as affirmed by the sessions judge turning down his appeal, has preferred this revision impeaching the legality and correctness of the orders concurrently passed by the two courts below. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent has entered appearance. Perusing the judgment rendered by the sessions judge in the appeal preferred by the petitioner/the respondent in the proceeding before the magistrate, it is noticed that the appeal was disposed on submissions jointly made by the counsel on both sides directing for disposal of the case pending before the magistrate as expeditiously as possible. In the memorandum of revision, no ground has been raised that what is recorded in the judgment of the sessions judge was not based on the submission of the counsel who appeared for the petitioner before that court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit before me that the court below misunderstood the submission made, and, the appeal was disposed as indicated. Crl.R.P No.2359 OF 2011 2 What is recorded in the court proceedings has to be accepted as true and correct and it cannot be allowed to be questioned before any superior forum unless a strong case is made out that the statement recorded is incorrect and vitiated by serious infirmity. When such be the case, I find, the revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge