IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3302 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.278/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CMP.8757/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K.F.J.REMOND, S/O.FRANCIS, AGED 43 YEARS, KIDANGAN HOUSE, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THANKAM, W/O.LATE SAMBASIVAN, C/O.RAMSINGH, VAZHOOR HOUSE, POST VALAPPAD, VALAPPAD DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SIVADAS, S/O.LATE SAMBASIVAN, C/O.RAMSINGH, VAZHOOR HOUSE, POST VALAPPAD, VALAPPAD DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SREEJA, S/O.SIVADAS, NAMBANATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R3 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3302 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is a tenant of the second respondent. The third respondent is the wife of the second respondent. The first respondent herein, who is the mother of the 2nd respondent, alleging domestic violence, approached the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur by a petition numbered as CMP.No.5409/2008 as against respondents 2 and 3 herein as respondents 1 and 2. By order dated 15.11.2008 in the above petition, the first respondent obtained the following reliefs: 1) R1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.one lakh as maintenance. 2) The respondents are restrained from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing the petitioner from the shared house hold. 3) The respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue to reside in the shared house-hold they are further restraining from alienating, disposing of the shared house hold or Crl.R.P.No.3302 of 2009. -: 2 :- encumbering the same in the same manner. 4) The Officer in charge of the concerned police station where the property is situated shall give protection to the petitioner and assist her in the implementation of the order for residence in the petition schedule property. 2. Aggrieved by relief No.2, the revision petitioner who claims to be a tenant in respect of the shared house hold, filed a petition as CMP.No.8757/2008 under Sec.25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By order dated 24.4.2009, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on a finding that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file an application under Sec.25 of the Act. In arriving such a conclusion it was found by the trial court that the revision petitioner would not come within the purview of the definition of 'aggrieved person' as defined in Sec.2(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order he filed Crl.Appeal No.278/2009. The appellate court concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment in appeal, this Crl.R.P.No.3302 of 2009. -: 3 :- revision petition was filed. 3. As mentioned earlier, the revision petitioner is a tenant in respect of the alleged shared household. 'Aggrieved person' as defined in Sec.2(a) of the Act means, 'any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent'. No doubt, the revision petitioner, being a tenant under the respondent as defined in Sec.2(q), would not come within the definition of 'aggrieved person' under Sec.2(a) of the Act. Section 25 of the Act stipulates that, a protection order made under Sec.18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge. Since the revision petitioner would not come within the definition of the aggrieved person, he is not entitled to apply for alteration under Sec.25 of the Act. With the facts as record, the first respondent is the aggrieved person and none else can apply under Sec.25 of the Act. The courts below were correct in arriving at a conclusion that the revision petitioner would Crl.R.P.No.3302 of 2009. -: 4 :- not come within the definition of aggrieved person. He is only a tenant under the respondent. A tenant cannot claim better right than his landlord. The order impugned is not at all vitiated by any error, illegality or impropriety. It is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner claims to have obtained right over the shared household on the strength of a lease deed dated 1.6.2008. Annexure-D notice produced by the revision petitioner would show that long back there was dispute between the first respondent on one hand and respondents 2 and 3 on the other hand. On 12.3.2008, the first respondent obtained an order of ad interim injunction in IA.No.2230/2008 in OS.No.346/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur against the 2nd respondent restraining alienation, transfer of property, etc. So, it can be seen even by the document produced by the revision petitioner that the so called lease transaction is subsequent to the arising of the dispute between the respondent and in violation of the prohibitory order of injunction granted by the Sub Court, Thrissur. The Crl.R.P.No.3302 of 2009. -: 5 :- remedy, if any, left with the revision petitioner is not under Sec.25 of the Act. The Revision Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-