IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 715 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.270/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM MC(DV).38/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------ 1. BINEESH, S/O. SUKUMARAN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, PALAVELI, RAMAPURAM.P.O, PALA. 2. SUKUMARAN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, -DO- 3. SANTHAMMA, W/O. SUKUMARAN, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE: -------------------------- 1. BEJI.M.K, W/O. BINEESH, MAROTTICKAL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU.P.O, MANKOMBU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 715 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioners are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of one Beji who approached the Magistrate Court with a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking monetary relief in the nature of return of money and gold ornaments and payment of maintenance. She also sought for a protection order to reside in the house and an order for the removal of petitioners 2 and 3. The latter reliefs were not pressed by the applicant. The learned Magistrate as per order dated 11-3-2008 ordered the revision petitioners to return to the applicant three gold bangles weighing 28.600 grams and a gold chain weighing 7.800 grams . The applicant was also directed to return a gold chain weighing three sovereigns with 'thali' weighing two grams which was given by the 1st revision petitioner at the time of the marriage. The 1st revision petitioner who is the husband of the applicant was ordered to pay to the applicant maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. from the date of the order. On appeal preferred by revision petitioners as Crl.A. No.270/2008, the learned Crl.R.P. 715/09 -2- Additional Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 26-7-2008, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners make the following submissions in support of the contention:- Even though an order for maintenance can be passed by the Magistrate by having recourse to section 20 of the Act, the maintenance so ordered can be only as a result of domestic violence. Both the courts have rejected the applicant's case that the 2nd revision petitioner who is her father-in-law had made prurient advance at her. The impotency of the husband cannot be said to be domestic violence. Hence, the order cannot be sustained. Even under section 125 Cr.P.C., husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife, only if she has sufficient grounds. Accusation of the applicant was that 1st revision petitioner was not having any means and he is a physically handicapped person. 3. Sub section (1) of section 20 of the Act reads as follows:- While disposing of an application under sub- section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and loses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to -- Crl.R.P. 715/09 -3- a) the loss of earning; b) the medical expenses; c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. It is true that monetary relief payable under section 20 can only as a result of domestic violence. The expression “violence” has been defined under section 2(g) as to have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, which reads as follows:- “3. Definition of domestic violence:- For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it- a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or b) harasses, harms, injuries or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or Crl.R.P. 715/09 -4- d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the aggrieved person. 4. Thus, going by clause (a) of section 3 even economic abuse will constitute domestic violence. Clause (iv) of Explanation I of section 3 defines economic abuse, which includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance. It also includes those items of properties which are covered by clause (b) and (c). Thus the courts below by directing the 1st respondent revision petitioner to return the gold ornaments found that he has been guilty of economic abuse. It is an ingredient of domestic violence as defined under section 3 of the Act. Hence, the contention that an order for maintenance can be passed only as a result of domestic violence and there is no finding regarding the domestic violence cannot be sustained. The order has been passed as a result of domestic violence, the violence being Crl.R.P. 715/09 -5- economic abuse. 5. The further contention that the 1st revision petitioner is not having sufficient means, as admitted by the applicant herself, is misconceived. Merely because he is physically handicapped, it does not render him in capable of aking out his livelihood and maintaining his wife. The person who chose to contract a marriage, it cannot take up a stand that he is unable to maintain her. He falls under the definition of able bodied husband which has been his moral as well as legal duty to maintain his wife. The 1st petitioner would not have entered into a matrimonial unless he has been resources to maintain his wife. Hence, the contention that he is unable to maintain his wife is devoid of any merit. 6. I see no ground justifying interference with the order passed by the courts below. Sitting the revisional jurisdiction this Court will be lost to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the courts below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.