IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2085 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------- CRA.31/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CMP.5206/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------- G.GANESHAN MASTER, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SREEMATHI NILAYAM', BEHIND K.T.C. HOSDURG TALUK, MANHANGAD.P.O. KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. C. LATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ANNAPOORNESWARI HOUSE, KIZHAKKE VALAPPIL KOTTIKKULAM, UDUMA.P.O., JASARAGOD DIST. 2. RANJITH GANESHAN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. G.GANESHAN MASTER RESIDING AT 'SREEMATHI NILAYAM', BEHIND K.T.C. HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD.P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. 3. SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUNNUMMAL HARIDAS, RESIDING AT 'SREEMATHI NILAYAM', KMC 11/1332, BEHIND K.T.C. HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2085 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Respondent No.1 filed a petition in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg under Section 23 of Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act. She stated that she was married to respondent No.2, son of petitioner on 31.10.2008 and thereafter they lived together as man and wife. From 10.11.2008 onwards respondent Nos.1 and 2, according to her, were staying in house No.KMC-11/1332 (hereinafter referred to as “the shared house”). She alleged that herself and respondent No.2 fell apart and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner started harassing her. She claimed that she is being prevented from entering the shared house and her ornaments are with respondent No.2 and others. Respondent No.2 is working in London and earning a monthly income of Rs.1,50,000/-. She prayed that petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 be restrained from preventing her entering the shared house. Learned magistrate passed an ex parte, interim order on 15.11.2008 as per which petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are prevented from obstructing respondent No.1 entering the shared house until further orders. 2. Petitioner filed C.M.P. No.5341 to vacate the interim order. CRL. R.P. No.2085 of 2009 -: 2 :- He claimed that respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of his son (respondent No.2) and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have never resided together in the shared house which belonged to him absolutely. Learned magistrate considered the petition and found that petitioner has not produced any document to show that the shared house exclusively belonged to him and at any rate, in the light of the decision in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT 175) respondent No.1 has a right of residence in the shared house whether or not she had a right over the said house. Accordingly C.M.P. No.5341 of 2008 was dismissed. Petitioner challenged that order in appeal. Learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence the revision. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 has resided in the shared house. Even in the first information statement she had given to the police on 13.11.2008 she had not stated that she is residing in the shared house. 4. The document which learned counsel has now relied on was not produced in the trial court. I am told that the document was CRL. R.P. No.2085 of 2009 -: 3 :- produced in the appellate court. 5. On the question whether respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent No.2, evidence is required. It is not possible or proper to say either way at this stage. Now there is the assertion of respondent No.1 that she is legally married to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has not come forward to challenge that contention. The contentious issues are to be decided in the trial court after recording evidence. There is no reason why this Court should exercise its power of revision and interfere with a discretionary order passed by the learned magistrate and concurred by the appellate court as to right of residence of respondent No.1 in the shared house. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that a direction may be issued to the learned magistrate to expedite trial and disposal of the petition. Considering the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner it is only proper that the learned magistrate disposed of the petition at the earliest. Revision is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv