Abdul Nasar v. Fousi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1530 of 2015 () -------------------------------- JUDGMENT IN CR.A 464/2013 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 22-11-2014 & ORDER IN MC 23/2010 OF THE ADDL.C.J.M.(E&O), ERNAKULAM DATED 17-08-2013 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- ABDUL NASAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PALLIPARAMBU, RAHMANIA MANZIL KATTUSSERY DESOM, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678541.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
-------------------------------------
1. FOUSI, AGED 36 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, ANUMANDOMTHODI HOUSE HIDAYATH NAGAR, KALATHODU, OLLUKKARA P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680655.
2. MINOR ALFI JINAN, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT FOUSI).
3. MINOR ALTHAF RAHMAN, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT FOUSI).
4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BKA/-
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1530 of 2015 () -------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2014 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.464/13 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2013 OF THE ACJM COURT (E.O), ERNAKULAM IN M.C.NO.23/2010 ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PEOPLES COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT REGISTER OF THE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2010.
RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE bka/-
P. UBAID, J.
-------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 1530 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2015
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order, directing him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of 1,500/- per month under the provisions of the ₹ Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the DV Act"). His wife brought the claim before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam as MC No.23/2010 under Section 12 of the the DV Act. The claim for maintenance made by the wife was disallowed by the learned Magistrate and the children were granted maintenance at the rate of 1,250/- each as per the order ₹ dated 17.08.2013. Aggrieved by the order disallowing maintenance, the petitioner's wife approached the Sessions Court, Ernakulam with Crl.Appeal No.464/2013 under Section 29 of the DV Act. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Appellate Judge found that the
CRRP No.1530/2015 ..2..
petitioner's wife is also entitled to get maintenance. Accordingly, her prayer was allowed and the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the wife also at the rate of 1,500/- per month by judgment dated ₹ 22.11.2014. The said order is under challenge in revision.
2.
On a perusal of the materials and on hearing the parties, I find that maintenance was rightly allowed to the wife by the appellate court at the rate of 1,500/- per ₹ month. The learned Magistrate disallowed the claim on the ground that the claimant failed to prove domestic violence. In fact, it is admitted in this case that the claimant has no job or source of income. The marriage tie still subsists and the claimant is residing away from her husband. During trial, it came out in evidence that the husband has deserted the wife. In such a situation, the wife is definitely entitled to maintenance, because, such desertion will amount to economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the provisions of the DV Act. I
CRRP No.1530/2015 ..3..
find that maintenance was rightly allowed by the learned Appellate Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case. I find no reason for interference in revision in the order passed by the appellate court.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files.
Sd/- P. UBAID JUDGE bka/14.12.2015