IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3519 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.333/2009 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRMP.748/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY S/O. RAMAN 46 YEARS, PULLATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUNDAYA GANESHGIRI POST, SHORNUR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): STATE & PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORANUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. VALLI .P. D/O. LATE KRISHNAN 62 YEARS PULLATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUNDAYA, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ====================== Crl.R.P. No.3519 of 2009. ====================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Upon a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as Crl.M.P.No.748/09, the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ottapalam by order dated 28.5.2009, among other things restrained the revision petitioner from entering into the house in dispute. In Criminal Appeal No.333/09 the above order was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, restraining entry in to the house, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the impugned judgment as well as the order of the trial court, I find that, in fact the revision petitioner has no right over the house in dispute and it belonged to the 2nd respondent in which the revision petitioner has been staying as a Crl.R.P. No.3519/ 2009 2 licencee for the last 7 years. In the above circumstances, I find that the order of the trial court restraining the revision petitioner from entering into the house is absolutely right. Taking into account that he had been residing there for the last 7 years, it is appropriate to grant him some breathing time. I find that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31.12.2009 to vacate the premises. 2. It is revealed in hearing that the revision petitioner had erected a cattle shed and had been rearing cattle, which is the source of his livelihood. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner has no space available at present to accommodate the cattle and he is prepared to remove the same. For that he sought for a little more time. I find that it will be quite appropriate to grant time till 15.2.2010 to vacate the cattle and shed. The revision petition is disposed as above. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns Crl.R.P. No.3519/ 2009 3