IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1850 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.376/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.755/2008 IN MC NO.7/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- G.HARIHARAN,SON OF LATE GANGADHARAN, TC 46/529,INDIRA SADANAM,POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER-PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/AGGRIEVED PERSON ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJANTHA,LEKSHMIVILASOM VEEDU, POONTHURA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1850 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009. ORDER Respondent No.1, wife of petitioner preferred a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). She alleged that petitioner is not allowing her to reside in the shared house, she is being harassed and she is not being maintained. She claimed that petitioner who is a salaried man has sufficient means to maintain her. Petition was opposed by petitioner. Learned magistrate as per order dated 8.4.2008 directed that petitioner shall not cause any sort of hurt to respondent No.1 as referred to in Section 18(a) of the Act. Petitioner was also directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Aggrieved, petitioner took the matter in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent No.1 also took up the matter in appeal as she was not fully satisfied with the order passed by learned magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge disposed of the appeals together. Now as the order stands, tdirection for payment of interim maintenance is confirmed. Learned Sessions Judge directed learned magistrate to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order for payment of Crl.R.P.No.1850/2009 2 maintenance as confirmed by learned Sessions Judge has come up in revision. Learned counsel contends that though petitioner is a salaried man, his take home salary is only Rs.2,382/-. 2. It has come in evidence that the gross salary of petitioner is Rs.13,839/-. May be, take home salary according to petitioner is only Rs.2,382/- but his contribution to the provident fund comes to Rs.5,810/-. It is not as if petitioner is not capable of earning or has no means. At any rate what is awarded is only interim maintenance and the liability of petitioner to pay maintenance and the quantum are to be finally decided by learned magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge has also directed expeditious disposal of petition pending before learned magistrate. There is no reason why this Court should interfere in revision with the order for payment of interim Learned magistrate has to dispose of the case untrammelled by any of the observations or finding contained in the impugned orders. With the above observation, revision petition is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.5595 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks