IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1956 of 2009 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2009 IN CRMP. 1844 /2009 IN CRA.352/2009 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CMP.6052/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- JOSE MATHEWS,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.C.MATHEW,KUNNATHU AIRIKKAL, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. LIBY MOL,D/O.THAMBI,AGED 25 YEARS, KANJIRAVELIL VEEDU, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON 22/06/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1956 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of June 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the dismissal of a stay petition, C.M.P.No.1844/09 in Crl. Appeal No.352/09 of the court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. That appeal arose from an order passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery on C.M.P.No.6052of 2009. Petition is filed by respondent No.2, wife of petitioner under Sec.12 of the Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Her case is that the vehicle involved belonged to her and was purchased with her funds even before her marriage with the petitioner but, the vehicle is being used by the petitioner. She therefore wanted custody of the vehicle. Petitioner resisted the prayer by contenting that the vehicle though purchased in the name of respondent No.2 actually belonged to him. Learned magistrate allowed C.M.P.No.6052 of 2009. In the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to stay the operation of the order. The dismissal of the stay petition is under challenge in this revision. 2. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicular documents stand in her name. It is also not Crl.R.P.No.1956/09 2 disputed that the vehicle was purchased a few days before the marriage of respondent No.2 with the petitioner whether, in spite of the same the vehicle actually belonged to the petitioner and the finding of learned magistrate to the contra is correct are matters to be decided by learned additional sessions judge. As the vehicular documents stand in the name of respondent No.2, she is entitled prima facie and also responsive for the use of that vehicle. It is in the circumstances that learned Additional Sessions Judge was not inclined to stay the operation of the order. I do not find reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned additional sessions judge. Petitioner can request learned Additional Sessions Judge for early disposal of his appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the appeal untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the order under challenge. With the above direction this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/