IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2058 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.422/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA MC.44/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UMA DEVI, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.SREENU, ESWARAM PARAMBIL VEETTIL, NEENDOOR MURI, PALLIPPADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SOMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, MOOLAYIL VEETTIL, KIZHAKE MURI, CHENNITHALA P.O., THRIPPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 105. 2. SARASAMMA, W/O.SOMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MOOLAYIL VEETTIL, KIZHAKKE MURI, CHENNITHALA P.O., THRIPPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 105. 3. RAJAMMA, W/O.RAJU, REMYA BHAVANAM, PULIVELIL, CHENNITHALA P.O., ORIPPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICST-690 105. 4. VIJAYAMMA, W/O.ARJUNAN, MULAYIL THARAYIL COLONY, PANDANADU P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 506. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C.No.44/2007. 2. Though the petitioner had approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Haripad by filing a petition under Sec.12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the learned Magistrate by order dated 18.2.2009 in M.C.No.44/2007 dismissed the said petition. Against the above order, though the revision petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.422/2009, by judgment dated 1.6.2010, the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal as there was no representation. It is the above orders of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Mavelikara and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Haripad are challenged in this Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010 -: 2 :- revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the above orders of the court below. 4. The revision petitioner is the aggrieved person, who filed the above M.C. before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad against the respondents among thereon. 1st and 2nd respondents are the parents of the husband of the petitioner and the remaining respondents are the sisters of the 2nd respondent. According to the aggrieved person, the son of 1st and 2nd respondent, namely Sreenu, married the aggrieved person on 6.7.2003 as per the religious rites and the petitioner had 52 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. The relatives of the petitioner entrusted Rs.1.5 lakhs to respondents 1 and 2. It is also the claim of the aggrieved person that the relatives of the petitioner also gave household articles and utensils to the petitioner. According to the aggrieved person, the respondents started Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010 -: 3 :- ill-treating the petitioner subsequent to the marriage and the respondents took all the gold ornaments of the petitioner, except 5 sovereigns of gold and that gold ornaments were used for their own needs. It is also the case of the aggrieved person that the respondents have used Rs.1.5 lakhs received from the relatives of the petitioner to modify their house. Finally, the respondents have ousted the petitioner out of her shared household. The prayer of the petitioner in the petition is to permit her to reside in her shared household and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to gave back 52 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs. 5. During the trial, the aggrieved person was herself examined as PW1 and no documentary evidence produced. Though the aggrieved person had claimed that 52 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the respondents 1 and 2 and Rs.1.5 lakhs, which was entrusted by the relatives of the petitioner, was misappropriated by respondents 1 and 2, the trial court has found that there is Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010 -: 4 :- no evidence for the entrustment. The trial court has specifically found that the aggrieved person has not furnished the details of the gold ornaments which she had. It is also the finding of the trial court that regarding the gold ornaments and the alleged entrustment of Rs.1.5 lakhs, absolutely there is no evidence and the aggrieved person failed to produce any convincing evidence. Same is the finding of the trial court with respect to the household articles also. The trial court specifically found that during the cross examination of PW1, she has stated that Rs.25,000/- was entrusted to the daughter of 1st respondent and 5 cents of property was transferred in the name of the petitioner. So the learned Magistrate found that the above evidence probabilise the case of the respondents. So the trial court concluded that the evidence adduced by the petitioner is not convincing to hold that 52 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1.5 lakhs were entrusted with the respondents 1 and 2. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of the aggrieved person is not a party in the Crl.R.P.No.2058 of 2010 -: 5 :- proceedings. So on facts, based upon evidence the trial court found against the revision petitioner and accordingly dismissed the petition. The above findings were though challenged in an appeal, the appeal was not properly prosecuted and accordingly, the same was dismissed by the lower appellate court. In the light of the above discussion and the evidence and materials referred above, which relied on by the trial court, even if an opportunity given to the revision petitioner, there will not be any fruitful turn out, rather it will result only in the waste of judicial time. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt