IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2887 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.164/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CRMP.2418/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOP V.V., S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN NAIR, VAYAKKAL, "ANUSHA", KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O LATE VELAYUDHAN NAIR VAYAKKAL, "ANUSHA", KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PREETHA P.V. D/O.PRABHAVATHY AMMA, PRAVIJA, AZHIKONAM, VATTAVILA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 2887 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the Ist October, 2010 ORDER This Crl.R.P is preferred by the respondents in CMP No.2418/2009 of the court o Judicial First Class Magistrate, Katakada in a proceedings instituted under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The first revision petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent are husband and wife. Second revision petitioner is the mother of the first revision petitioner. After considering the grievance of the aggrieved persons, in the light of the evidence and materials available on record, the trial court issued an order under section 19(1)(a) of the above Act with a direction to the first revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in addition to the maintenance ordered by the Family court and also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- before the month of June of every year to meet the educational expenses of his two children. Though the said order was challenged in the appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal but subject to CRL.R.P 2887/10 -:2:- modification with respect to the amount ordered by the trial court under the count of education expenses of the children and reduced the same fixed as Rs.10,000/-. 3. It is the above orders of the trial court as well as the appellate court challenged in this Crl.R.P. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and I have perused the orders of the courts below . 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the aggrieved person never resided in the house along with the revision petitioners and there is no evidence to substantiate the contra claim of the aggrieved persons, except the admission register , i.e. Exts.P1 to P4. The contention now advanced by the learned counsel is based upon factual dispute which was also dealt with by the trial court as well as the appellate court and found in favour of the aggrieved persons. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, in the absence of any specific ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, this court CRL.R.P 2887/10 -:3:- will not be justified in interfering with the orders which are issued in favour of the aggrieved persons under the benevolent provisions of the above Act. In the result, there is no merit in the Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-