IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2401 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2010 IN CMP.2153/10 IN CMP.5866/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.S.MANOJ KUMAR,S/O.M.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESIDENT OF T.C.19/2033,RAMACHANDRA VILASOM, MUDAVANMUGAL,POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN, SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUNITHA BEEGAM.I ALIAS SUNITHA, SILVER LANE,TENRA-138,DPI ROAD,THYCAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALSO HAVING RESIDENTS AT NOORJAHAN MANZIL,PARUVACKAL,BANK ROAD,ALATHOOR TALUK,PALAGHAT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner herein is the sole respondent in C.M.P.No.5866/08, which is a petition preferred by the aggrieved party as per Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-Trivandrum. In the above petition, the aggrieved party has filed C.M.P.No.5904/08 seeking interim maintenance u/s.23 of the above Act and by an order dated 11.12.2008, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner herein, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the aggrieved person, ie.,the petitioner therein, w.e.f. from the date of the order and it is also ordered that the payment shall be effected within 5 days for the first month from the date of that order. Though the said interim order was challenged, the same was confirmed by the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, and also by this court. Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 2 2. That being the position, the revision petitioner herein preferred C.M.P.No.2153/10 in C.M.P.No.5866/08, with a prayer for staying the main proceedings vide C.M.P.No.5866/08 until disposal of O.P.No.358/09 of Family Court, Trivandrum, filed by the revision petitioner, questioning the legality of the marriage, claimed by the respondent. But by order dated 7.6.2010, the learned Magistrate held that he can not stay the main proceedings since the Principal District Judge, Trivandrum, vide judgment in Crl.A.No.1026/08 dated 13.2.2009 has directed Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum, to dispose of the main proceedings vide C.M.P.No.5866/08 within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment of the lower appellate court. So the learned Magistrate declined the prayer for staying the proceedings in the main case. It is the above order challenged by the revision petitioner, by preferring this revision petition. 3. As mentioned earlier, C.M.PNo.5866/08 is preferred by the aggrieved person and her child, alleging that she is the wife Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 3 of the revision petitioner herein and the 2nd revision petitioner herein is the daughter born out from the said wedlock. It is also the allegation that, the revision petitioner herein has subjected her to domestic violence, as the revision petitioner, who is having a monthly income of more than Rs.1 lakh as his salary as Co-Pilot in Air India Service, has been neglecting to maintain the revision petitioner and her child. 4. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that he had not married the 2nd respondent, who is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.5866/08 pending before the CJM Court, Trivandrum, though he admits some amorous affairs with her which culminated in the delivery of female child, Anushka Suman. According to him, both of them are belonged to different religion and there was no marital relationship between them. Thus according to him, he approached the Family Court, Trivandrum, by filing Annexure B petition. As revealed from the cause title of Annexure B, it can be seen that the revision petitioner's prayer is for declaration of the alleged marital relationship, which is a void Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 4 one and can not stand in the eye of law. According to the revision petitioner, he had preferred O.P.(G&W) No.880/08 before the Family Court, Trivandrum, u/s.7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, seeking a declaration as the revision petitioner is the guardian of the minor child namely Anushka Suman. 5. Admittedly, C.M.P.No.5866/08 is preferred by the respondent therein, claiming that she is the wife of the revision petitioner and thereby claiming maintenance for herself and her child. Therefore, with respect to the matter is pending before the learned Magistrate, the question to be decided is whether the petitioner therein, the aggrieved person, is the legally married wife of the revision petitioner, who is the respondent therein. It is equally important to note that, Annexure B petition, preferred by the revision petitioner is also pending before the Family Court, Trivandrum, for a declaration to the effect that the respondent therein, who is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.5866/08 is not the wife of the revision petitioner. Therefore, the finding in either of the proceedings have a far-reaching consequence and Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 5 bearing effect. The Family Court being a civil court, is competent to declare the marital relationship between the parties, upon the proceedings pending therein. Whereas in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Trivandrum, the main allegation is under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the light of the contention raised by the revision petitioner, a decision on the issue referred above - regarding the status of the contesting parties and the marriage, is absolutely necessary. Therefore, it is only just and proper for the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Trivandrum, to adjourn the case till the final decision from the Family Court, Trivandrum, upon the petition preferred by the revision petitioner. 6. In this juncture it is relevant to note that the respondent herein, the aggrieved person, had already moved the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Trivandrum, in C.M.P.No.5904/08 for interim maintenance and the learned Magistrate had already issued a direction, directing the revision petitioner to pay Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 6 monthly maintenance @ Rs.20,000/-. The said order was confirmed by both the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, as well as by this court. So the aggrieved person is entitled to get the interim maintenance, on monthly rate as ordered by the court below and therefore even if the main case is adjourned, awaiting the judgment of the Family Court upon the petition filed by the revision petitioner, it will not likely to affect the aggrieved person and therefore, I am of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of without, issuing notice to the aggrieved person. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Trivandrum, not to take any effective steps to dispose of C.M.P.No.5866/08, till the disposal of O.P.No.358/09, pending before the Family Court, Trivandrum. It is also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-Trivandrum, to post the C.M.P.No.5866/08 on every month to ensure that the revision petitioner herein comply with the order issued by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.5904/08 and thereby the benefit therein being given to the aggrieved Crl.R.P.No.2401 of 2010 7 person. The Family Court, Trivandrum, is directed to dispose of O.P.No.358/09 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which will be produced by the revision petitioner herein. All the parties to the proceedings pending before the court below are directed to co-operate with the trial of the case. Subject to the above direction and observation, this revision petition is disposed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/