IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3466 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.236/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM MC.23/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ SURESH KUMAR, S/O. VAMADEVAN, MANJAMPARA VEEDU, PATHIRIPALLY, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THARA, D/O. VIJAYAKUMARI, KAROTTU VEEDU KOTAMUKAL, PULIYAMPALLYKKONAM, MANNANTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SUMANGALA.P.N THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.3466 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER The above revision petition is preferred by the sole respondents in M.C.No.23/2007, which is a proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at the instance of the wife of the revision petitioner, who is the respondent herein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the impugned order of the trial court as well as the appellate court and during the pendency of the revision petition, the dispute has been amicable settled out of court. As evident by Annexure-1 document wherein the respondent herein the aggrieved person had agreed to all contentions and petition and all other case filed against the revision petitioner and she will further file a petition for divorce. It is also evident from Annexure-1 that the respondent had received substantial amount from the revision petitioner as part of the settlement. Crl.R.P.NO.3466 OF 2010 2 3. In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court while admitting the above revision petition, the aggrieved person/second respondent entered appearance through counsel and preferred a statement dated 25.03.2011. In the said statement also it is stated that as per the mutual settlement entered into between the aggrieved person and the revision petitioner herein and as per the recital therein she had received an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on 22.3.2011 and she had agreed to withdraw all the cases which she filed against the revision petitioner. Accordingly, it is stated therein that she is withdrawing her contentions levelled against the revision petitioner in M.C.No.23/2007 and further stated that she has no objection in allowing the above criminal revision petition. 4. In the light of the above statement of the respondent and Annexure-1 produced as per Crl.M.A. No.3026/2011, I am of the view that this revision petition can be allowed as the respondent has no further grievance and contentions against the petitioner. Crl.R.P.NO.3466 OF 2010 3 In the result, this revision petition is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 13.7.2010 in Crl.Appeal No.236/2009 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the order dated 4.3.2009 in MC.No.23/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm