IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1971 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.288/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA MC.111/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JALEEL, S/O.ABU, AGED 35 YEARS, ALAKKAL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., PARAKKAL, KALPETTA, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SARA ALAKKAL, CHELANJICHAL, PARIYARAM P.O., PARACKAL, KALPETTA, WYNAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1971 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the the 22nd Day of July, 2010 ORDER Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.5.2010 in Crl.A.No.288/2008 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta and the order dated 4.11.2008 in M.C.No.111 of 2008 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, Wayanad , the husband preferred this Crl.R.P against his wife. 2. The case of the wife of the revision petitioner is that the marriage between herself and the present revision petitioner was taken place about 17 years back and there was no issues in the wedlock. According to the wife, the revision petitioner has got some illicit connection with another lady namely, one Nameera and when the wife questioned about it, she was subjected to harassment and finally, he deserted her. It is also stated in the petition that at the time of marriage, the aggrieved person was provided with 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:2:- Rs.50,000/- by the people of the locality and the gold ornaments and cash entrusted with the revision petitioner was taken away and misused by him and he was not contacting the petitioner for the last 1 ½ years and finally, the father of the revision petitioner came to the house of the wife and he took her to Wayanad and the revision petitioner/husband of the claimant, eloped with the said Nameera. According to the Ist respondent-wife, the revision petitioner has income of Rs.7000/- per month and she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and also prayed for return of the cash and gold ornaments. 3. During the trial of the case, from the side of the claimant/wife, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. From the side of the revision petitioner, himself was examined as RW1 and produced Ext.D1 marriage certificate. The trial court on the basis of the evidence and materials on record and the rival pleadings formulated 4 points for its consideration and finally found that the revision petitioner/respondent is liable to return 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/- Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:3:- and accordingly, allowing the petition, it was ordered prohibiting the revision petitioner from committing any sort of domestic violence on the first respondent and the revision petitioner was directed to provide monetary relief at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition and also directed the revision petitioner to return to the possession of the first respondent/petitioner 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the cash equivalent as on the date of payment and the cash of Rs.50,000/- that belonged to her and misused by him. 4. Challenging the above order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.288/2008 and by judgment dated 27.5.2010, the Sessions Court, Wayanad dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Thus in this Revision Petition, the above orders of the courts below are challenged. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that there is no iota of evidence in support of the findings of the trial court or lower appellate Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:4:- court regarding the receipt or entrustment of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash Rs.50,000/- with the revision petitioner. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court committed wrong in acting upon the evidence of PW2, the father of the revision petitioner since his father is in inimical terms with him. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. In support of the allegations and claims contained in the petition, the first respondent, wife of the revision petitioner, adduced her evidence and she had deposed in terms of the petition. From the evidence of PW1, it is emerged that her marriage with the revision petitioner was solemnized 17 years back and there was no issue in their wedlock. It is also borne out from the evidence which referred by the lower appellate court that the first respondent, wife of the revision petitioner was an orphan Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:5:- from the age of 3 years and she was under the care and protection of younger brother of her father and his wife. It is also deposed by her that her father and father of the revision petitioner are brothers. It is also deposed by her that at the time of marriage, she was provided with 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/-. It is specifically stated by her that the gold ornaments were provided by her paternal uncles and they also collected Rs.50,000/- from the local people for marriage. It is the above property entrusted with the revision petitioner and he misused the same. It is also stated by PW1 that the revision petitioner was working in a baniyan company at Thirupur and earning sufficient income. It is also stated that while the above marital obligation was existing, the revision petitioner had connection with another lady who was also working in the very same baniyan company. The above vital deposition of PW1 was corroborated by the evidence of PW2 who is none other than the father of the revision petitioner. During the examination of PW2, he had admitted the marriage between the revision Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:6:- petitioner and the claimant before the trial court, the first respondent herein. PW2 had also admitted that at the time of marriage by collecting the amount from the local people and relatives, purchased 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/- and the revision petitioner and the first respondent lived together. It is also his evidence that the properties were entrusted with the revision petitioner by the authorities of the Mahal committee. Thus, it can be seen that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court on the basis of the evidence on record has concurrently found that the claim of the first respondent herein, the wife of the revision petitioner is genuine and correct. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted by producing the certified copy of the proceedings of the lower appellate court produced as annexure A that though the matter was heard on 23-7-2009, on that day no judgment was pronounced but the impugned judgment was passed only on 27.5.2010 and therefore the appellate court judgment is liable to be set aside. I have carefully gone Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:7:- through the judgment of the lower appellate court and on perusal of the judgment it can be seen that the lower appellate court has considered all the relevant inputs and elaborately considered the counter claims and came into a conclusion against the revision petitioner and in favour of the first respondent. In the light of the appreciation of evidence and evaluation of the materials by the appellate court, I am of the view that even if there is a delay in pronouncing the judgment, the same will not affect the correctness of the finding arrived by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court. In the result,there is no merit in the Crl.Revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P.1971/10 -:8:- .