IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1147 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.978/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP NO.3453/2008 IN MC.104/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- NAJEEB S/O. NASSIR KANNU, AGED 28 YEARS, NOOR MAHAL, CHEKKAKONAM MURI, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. JASEENA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. NABEEZA BEEVI, CNRA - 36-A, CHITHIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1147 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. The challenge in this revision is to the order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No.3453 of 2008 in M.C.No.104 of 2008 as modified by learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.978 of 2008. Respondent No.1 admittedly is the wife of petitioner. She preferred an application under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that she is being illtreated and neglected by the petitioner and she apprehends that she may be ousted from the shared house. Learned magistrate as per order dated 15.11.2008 issued an interim order directing the petitioner not to alienate the shared house or in any way part with the possession and to pay maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month until further orders. Aggrieved, petitioner challenged that order in appeal. Learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 10.2.2009 refused to interfere with the order as regards the shared house but modified the allowance to Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that in the facts of the case, there is no justification in directing the petitioner to pay monthly allowance. Crl.R.P.No.1147/2009 2 3. Concededly, the order passed by the learned magistrate is of an interim nature, until further orders. It is not contended that learned magistrate had no jurisdictional competence to issue such an order. Since the provision for payment of allowance is a social measure intended to prevent vagrancy and ameliorate distress and it is open to the learned magistrate to pass appropriate final order after hearing the petitioner also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order under challenge at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to request the learned magistrate to expedite the enquiry and disposal of M.C.No.104 of 2008. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.3423 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks