IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1577 of 2010 -------------------------------- (CRA.753/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.8784/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PRABHAVATHI @ LEELA, W/O.LATE KESAVAN SAROVARAM, HOUSE NO.1V/147 KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KALA, THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL, NELLIMOODU PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJESH S/O. LATE KESAVAN, SREEMURUGAN, POTTAKULAM KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BIJU S/O.KESAVAN, CHERUKARI CHANNELKARA VEEDU THIRUPURAM, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1577 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 O R D E R The second respondent in C.M.P.No.8784 of 2009 is the revision petitioner herein as she is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2009 in CMP No.8784 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara and the judgment dated 29.3.2010 in Crl.A.No.753 of 2009 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Proceedings in the trial court were initiated by the aggrieved person, who is the wife of the first respondent in the trial court and the daughter-in-law of the second respondent, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), claiming Protection orders under Section 18, Residence orders under Section 19, Monetary reliefs under Sections 20 and Compensation Orders under Section 22 of the Act. Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-2-: According to the aggrieved party (Smt.Kala), the marriage between her and the first respondent was conducted on 16.5.2008 in Nellimoodu Gurukumar Auditorium as per Hindu custom and at the time of marriage, 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to her and 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the first respondent and after marriage, they came to House No.IV/147, Sarovaram, Kanjiramkulam Post and started residing there as husband and wife along with respondents 2 and 3, who are the revision petitioner herein as well as the fourth respondent herein- Biju, S/o.late Kesavan. So, the grievance of the complainant- Kala is mainly against her mother-in-law -Prabhavathy and her son- Biju. According to the lower appellate court, serious allegations are made in the affidavit in support of the petition filed before the trial court. 3. It is relevant to note that the admitted fact is that the aggrieved person is the daughter-in-law of the Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-3-: revision petitioner herein. The lower appellate court, after considering the rival pleadings and materials on record and on considering the judgments of the Apex Court in S.R.Bhadra and Another v. Tharuna Bhadra [2007(3) KLT SN 8 Case No.9] and also the decision of this Court reported in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala [2009(1) KLT 179], held that the order of the trial court granting residence order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the aggrieved person and her child from house No.IV/147 of Kanjiramkulam Panchayath until further orders is absolutely correct and legal and thereby, the lower appellate court confirmed the interim order passed by the trial court. While disposing of the appeal, the lower appellate court specifically made clear that the order passed therein will not be a bar for the lower court to consider the question whether the house mentioned above is a shared household of the aggrieved person or the house belongs to the revision petitioner Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-4-: exclusively and the other respondents or the aggrieved person has any right of residence in that house etc. on the basis of the evidence to be adduced at the time of deciding the main case. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.7.2010. 4. Going by the judgment of the lower appellate court and the order passed by the trial court, I am of the view that the question as to whether House No.IV/147 of Kanjiramkulam Panchayath is a shared household of the aggrieved person or the house belongs to the revision petitioner exclusively and the other respondents or the aggrieved person has any right of residence in the said house is a matter of evidence. It is clear from the order of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court that the said orders are interim in nature and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the trial court. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-5-: court and the trial court, especially, when the marriage between the second respondent and the third respondent is beyond any dispute. Therefore, the Crl.R.P. is disposed of relegating the revision petitioner to approach the trial court. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------- ----- J U D G M E N T Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010 :-7-: DATED: -2- 2010