Saritha P.T. v. Sarojini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/8TH ASHADHA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.710 of 2015 Crl.A No.371/2013 of III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE. CMP NO.1769/2013 IN M.C NO.24/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KUNNAMANGALAM.

...

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDNET/PETITIONER: SARITHA P.T,AGED 34 YEARS,W/O.PRASAD, PULIYAPOTTAMMEL VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT(VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP RESPONDENT'S/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:

1.

SAROJINI,AGED 71 YEARS,W/O.KUTTIRAMAN, PULIYAPOTTAMMAL VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT (VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM - 673 601.

2.

RENUKA,AGED 49 YEARS,D/O.KUTTIRAMAN, PULIYAPOTTAMMAL VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT (VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM - 673 601 3.

KUTTIRAMAN,AGED 83 YEARS,S/O.NAYADI, PULIYAPOTTAMMAL VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT (VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM - 673 601.

4.

LILLY,AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.RAMANAN, GOSALIPARAMBA VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT (VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM - 673 601.

5.

RAMANAN,AGED 52 YEARS, GOSALIPARAMBA VEEDU,P.O.CHULOOR, NIT (VIA),CHATHAMANGALAM - 673 601.

6.

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI - 682 031.

R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

---------------------- Crl.R.P. No.710 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June 2015

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C. No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. He prayed for an interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the house which is said to be a shared house hold. The prayer was granted by the learned Magistrate. In the appeal the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra Vs. Shikha Batra [2007(3) KLT SN 33]. This is challenged in this revision petition.

2. Heard.

3. At the hearing it was submitted by the learned counsel that it is sufficient for the court to make an observation that the petitioner may adduce evidence to establish that the petitioner's husband has a right in the

Crl.R.P. No.710 of 2015 2 shared house hold untrammeled by any of the observations made in the appellate judgment. I think the request is reasonable.

This Crl.R.P. is dismissed with the above observation.

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge